Evaluation of School Wellness Policies in Low-Income California Districts After the 2016 USDA Final Rule.

Lynnea M LoPresto, Diana L Cassady, Melanie S Dove
Author Information
  1. Lynnea M LoPresto: Department of Public Health Sciences, School of Medicine, University of California, Davis, CA. ORCID
  2. Diana L Cassady: Department of Public Health Sciences, School of Medicine, University of California, Davis, CA.
  3. Melanie S Dove: Department of Public Health Sciences, School of Medicine, University of California, Davis, CA.

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Districts with federal nutrition programs must have an updated local school wellness policy (LSWP) to promote nutrition, physical activity, and student wellness. This study evaluates factors associated with LSWP quality among low-income districts.
METHODS: In 2018, we collected LSWPs from websites of 200 randomly selected, county-stratified, low-income-serving California public districts. Multivariable linear regression assessed associations between district characteristics, model LSWP use (national, state, none), and adoption date on policy quality.
RESULTS: On the WellSAT 3.0 scale of 0-100, mean (95% CI) comprehensiveness was 65.0 (63.2-66.7) and strength was 37.3 (35.3-39.2). Nearly verbatim adoption of model LSWPs was high (68.5% state model, 13.0% a national model). Half were adopted before mandated updates. District size (≥1000 students) and national model LSWP adoption were associated with higher comprehensive scores. National model LSWP adoption was associated with higher strength scores in updated policies compared with those not updated.
IMPLICATIONS: LSWPs have improved school food and activity environments, but district engagement in LSWP is low. Integration into education frameworks that reduce learning barriers could provide synergy for re-engagement.
CONCLUSIONS: High adoption of model policies and low update compliance indicate little district engagement in LSWP. Mixed methods studies of districts with high-quality LSWP are needed.

Keywords

References

  1. J Sch Health. 2016 Sep;86(9):653-9 [PMID: 27492934]
  2. J Dev Behav Pediatr. 2017 Feb/Mar;38(2):135-150 [PMID: 28134627]
  3. Nutrients. 2021 Oct 07;13(10): [PMID: 34684521]
  4. Am J Prev Med. 2012 Sep;43(3):304-8 [PMID: 22898124]
  5. J Acad Nutr Diet. 2021 May;121(5):872-882 [PMID: 33187929]
  6. J Sch Health. 2015 Nov;85(11):795-801 [PMID: 26440821]
  7. J Sch Health. 2015 Nov;85(11):729-39 [PMID: 26440815]
  8. J Sch Health. 2016 Sep;86(9):631-7 [PMID: 27492931]
  9. J Sch Health. 2015 Nov;85(11):775-84 [PMID: 26440819]
  10. Nutr Rev. 2017 Jul 01;75(7):533-552 [PMID: 28838082]
  11. J Sch Health. 2018 Jul;88(7):516-523 [PMID: 29864208]
  12. J Am Diet Assoc. 2009 Jul;109(7):1256-62 [PMID: 19559146]
  13. J Sch Health. 2012 Jun;82(6):262-7 [PMID: 22568461]
  14. Health Promot Pract. 2015 Mar;16(2):193-201 [PMID: 25249567]
  15. Prev Chronic Dis. 2020 Jul 02;17:E52 [PMID: 32614770]
  16. Health Promot Pract. 2021 Nov;22(6):880-889 [PMID: 32114824]
  17. J Am Diet Assoc. 2009 Feb;109(2 Suppl):S79-90 [PMID: 19166676]
  18. Nutrients. 2019 Dec 23;12(1): [PMID: 31877943]
  19. Nutrients. 2021 Jan 22;13(2): [PMID: 33499016]
  20. Nutrients. 2021 Jan 09;13(1): [PMID: 33435387]
  21. Pediatrics. 2019 Oct;144(4): [PMID: 31501236]
  22. J Acad Nutr Diet. 2020 Mar;120(3):359-362 [PMID: 31948796]
  23. J Sch Health. 2021 Jul;91(7):562-573 [PMID: 33954996]
  24. J Sch Health. 2009 Nov;79(11):541-6 [PMID: 19840231]
  25. Am J Prev Med. 2013 Aug;45(2):143-9 [PMID: 23867020]

Grants

  1. KL2 TR001859/NCATS NIH HHS
  2. UL1 TR001860/NCATS NIH HHS

MeSH Term

United States
Humans
Health Promotion
United States Department of Agriculture
Health Policy
Schools
California
School Health Services
Nutrition Policy

Word Cloud

Created with Highcharts 10.0.0LSWPmodeladoptionnutritionupdatedschoolpolicyassociateddistrictsLSWPsdistrictnationalDistrictswellnessactivityqualityCaliforniastate30strengthstudentshigherscorespoliciesengagementlowhealthBACKGROUND:federalprogramsmustlocalpromotephysicalstudentstudyevaluatesfactorsamonglow-incomeMETHODS:2018collectedwebsites200randomlyselectedcounty-stratifiedlow-income-servingpublicMultivariablelinearregressionassessedassociationscharacteristicsusenonedateRESULTS:WellSATscale0-100mean95%CIcomprehensiveness65632-66737353-392Nearlyverbatimhigh 685%130%HalfadoptedmandatedupdatesDistrictsize≥1000comprehensiveNationalcomparedIMPLICATIONS:improvedfoodenvironmentsIntegrationeducationframeworksreducelearningbarriersprovidesynergyre-engagementCONCLUSIONS:HighupdatecomplianceindicatelittleMixedmethodsstudieshigh-qualityneededEvaluationSchoolWellnessPoliciesLow-Income2016USDAFinalRuledata-drivendecision-makinglegislationvulnerable

Similar Articles

Cited By

No available data.