Page 104 - ON THE WAY TO HEALTHIER SCHOOL CANTEENS - Irma Evenhuis

Chapter 6. Process evaluation
Implementation Tool
Canteen Scan
Advisory meeting and report
Communication materials
Online community
Newsletter (was sent 4 times)
Students’ fact sheet
Target Group
Each school
All stake- holders
All stake- holders
All stake- holders
All stake- holders
Each school
Dose Delivered and Received Objective n (%)
Completed 24 (52.2%)
Invited 10
Sent to 27
Given to the stakeholders present at the meeting
Dose Received Subjective a n (%)
Satisfaction b Mean (SD)
3.50 (0.66)
4.17 (0.44)
3.98 (0.23)
2.61 (1.31)
3.35 (0.58)
4.31 (0.40)
Invited
Subscribed Read
Sent to Average read
Average click on topic
Sent to
34
21 (61.8%) 17 (50.0%)
34
15.3 (45.0%) Range per newsletter 14–17
4.8 (14.1%) Range per newsletter 2–6
10
Used
Received Read
Received Read
Sub- scribed
Received Read
Received Read
3 (30%)
19 (67.9%)
18 (64.3%)
17 (60.7%)
14 (50.0%)
5 (17.86%)
13 (46.4%)
9 (32.1%)
8 (80%) 6 (60%)
a Dose received was measured by
agree). To calculate the percentage, the 24 persons who filled in the questionnaire were taken as 100%, except for the Canteen Scan and Students’ fact sheet were 10 persons who received these materials are 100%.
b The questions to assess Satisfaction were answered by the stakeholders who used/read/completed the implementation tool. Satisfaction was measured by 1 to 6 questions, depending the implementation tool (see Supplementary Table S6.1 and S6.2), with a 5-point Likert scale (1 = totally disagree, 5 = totally agree).
Qualitative evaluation of the quality of implementation
The questionnaires for schools and stakeholders were evaluated as being too long and some questions as being difficult to answer if the participant had limited involvement in canteen activities (e.g., school directors or community health promoters). While, due to technical limitations, some participants did not fill out the Canteen Scan themselves, all received the result of the Scan filled out by the school canteen advisor. The Scan was rated as added value increasing knowledge, providing insight into and monitoring the health level of the canteen over time. Stakeholders were satisfied with the personal contact with the school canteen advisors, insight received into their canteens and the tailored, clear, and feasible advices. Stakeholders of schools and caterers both mentioned the importance of collaboration with each other, knowing each other’s expectations, and defining aims and actions together. The advisory meeting helped strengthen this.
Stakeholders evaluated the communication materials as clear, feasible and inspiring. The newsletter was also evaluated as feasible and useful, especially as a reminder, for inspiration, and for tips. The newsletter as information overload, in combination with
102
1, 3, 5, or 6 questions, with a 5-point Likert scale (1
= totally disagree, 5 = totally