Understanding the social context of school health promotion program implementation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose Although implementation fidelity is an important component in the evaluation of school health promotion programs, it assumes that teaching is the most relevant teacher role. To understand the social context of program implementation, a qualitative study was undertaken with the aim of identifying the schoolteacher's role in implementing the objectives of the Kahnawake Schools Diabetes Prevention Project (KSDPP), a locally governed Kanienke:háka (Mohawk) community‐based diabetes prevention program. Design/methodology/approach Prospective semi‐structured interviews were conducted cross‐sectionally with 30 teachers, two administrators and one physical education teacher across four intervention years. Interviews were analysed retrospectively using qualitative thematic analysis. Findings In implementing KSDPP objectives teachers adopted, to varying degrees, the roles of teaching the health education curriculum, enforcing the school nutrition policy, role modelling healthy lifestyles, and encouraging healthy lifestyles. Taken together, these roles point to a high‐order role of teachers taking responsibility for enabling healthy lifestyles in their children, which is congruent with a wholistic approach to health. Study findings suggest that children in different classrooms were exposed to a different intervention dose based on the extent to which teachers applied each role. Research limitations/implications The findings suggest that the current conceptualisation of implementation fidelity should be expanded to account for the influence of the social context (i.e. teachers' roles) on the implementation of health promotion program objectives. Originality/value Consistent with an ecological approach to intervention, teachers would benefit from interventions that predispose, enable, and reinforce their capacity to adopt and apply health promotion roles.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".