Quality of local school wellness policies for physical activity and resultant implementation in Pennsylvania schools.

E Francis, E Hivner, A Hoke, T Ricci, A Watach, J Kraschnewski
Author Information
  1. E Francis: Penn State PRO Wellness, Hershey, PA, USA.
  2. E Hivner: Penn State PRO Wellness, Hershey, PA, USA.
  3. A Hoke: Penn State PRO Wellness, Hershey, PA, USA.
  4. T Ricci: Pennsylvania Department of Health, Harrisburg, PA, USA.
  5. A Watach: The Pennsylvania State University, Hershey, PA, USA.
  6. J Kraschnewski: Penn State PRO Wellness, Hershey, PA, USA.

Abstract

Background: In 2006, United States public schools participating in federal school meal programs were required to adopt school wellness policies. The effect of these policies on school nutrition environments is well documented; however, evaluation of physical activity policies has received less investigation. We aimed to evaluate how district wellness policies aligned to practice for physical activity implementation in 40 schools with high obesity rates (>24%).
Methods: Wellness policies were evaluated using the validated Wellness School Assessment Tool (WellSAT). Concurrently, schools completed the validated Alliance for a Healthier Generation's Healthy Schools Program (HSP) self-assessment to evaluate physical activity practices. Overall, 13 of 20 physical activity measures from WellSAT and 12 of 13 physical activity measures from HSP were aligned to match policy with practice.
Results: Most policy items scored 0 or 1, indicating either 'no mention in the policy' or 'containing weak or vague language'. Corresponding HSP results indicated that school physical activity practices are 'not in place' or 'under development'. A strong, positive, correlation (r = 0.92, P < 0.001) indicated that a significant relationship exists between policy and implementation.
Conclusions: Results indicate that most districts currently have weak policies regarding physical activity, limiting the potential to positively influence school-based physical activity.

References

  1. Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act. 2010 May 11;7:40 [PMID: 20459784]
  2. JAMA. 2014 Feb 26;311(8):806-14 [PMID: 24570244]
  3. J Nutr Educ Behav. 2012 Nov-Dec;44(6):513-20 [PMID: 21795119]
  4. Am J Prev Med. 2012 Sep;43(3):304-8 [PMID: 22898124]
  5. Health Aff (Millwood). 2010 Mar-Apr;29(3):447-53 [PMID: 20194986]
  6. J Sch Health. 2012 Jun;82(6):268-76 [PMID: 22568462]
  7. BMC Public Health. 2013 Sep 08;13:813 [PMID: 24010994]
  8. Health Promot Pract. 2014 May;15(3):340-8 [PMID: 22991280]
  9. J Am Diet Assoc. 2008 Sep;108(9):1497-502 [PMID: 18755322]
  10. Prev Chronic Dis. 2012;9:E65 [PMID: 22380938]
  11. J Phys Act Health. 2015 Apr;12(4):500-5 [PMID: 24770531]
  12. J Sch Health. 2012 Jun;82(6):262-7 [PMID: 22568461]
  13. Am J Public Health. 2012 Jul;102(7):1406-13 [PMID: 22420819]
  14. Prev Chronic Dis. 2013 Nov 07;10:E184 [PMID: 24199737]

Grants

  1. U58 DP004836/NCCDPHP CDC HHS

MeSH Term

Child
Exercise
Humans
Organizational Policy
Pediatric Obesity
Pennsylvania
Program Development
School Health Services
Schools

Word Cloud

Created with Highcharts 10.0.0physicalactivitypoliciesschoolschoolswellnessimplementationHSPpolicy0evaluatealignedpracticeWellnessvalidatedWellSATpractices13measuresweakindicatedBackground:2006UnitedStatespublicparticipatingfederalmealprogramsrequiredadopteffectnutritionenvironmentswelldocumentedhoweverevaluationreceivedlessinvestigationaimeddistrict40highobesityrates>24%Methods:evaluatedusingSchoolAssessmentToolConcurrentlycompletedAllianceHealthierGeneration'sHealthySchoolsProgramself-assessmentOverall2012matchResults:itemsscored1indicatingeither'nomentionpolicy''containingvaguelanguage'Correspondingresults'notplace''underdevelopment'strongpositivecorrelationr=92P<001significantrelationshipexistsConclusions:Resultsindicatedistrictscurrentlyregardinglimitingpotentialpositivelyinfluenceschool-basedQualitylocalresultantPennsylvania

Similar Articles

Cited By (6)