The Researchers Have Left the Building: What Contributes to Sustaining School‐Based Interventions Following the Conclusion of Formal Research Support?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: This study examined the sustainability of New Moves, a school-based program aimed at decreasing weight-related problems in adolescent girls. The National Cancer Institute recognizes New Moves as a research-tested intervention program that produced positive behavioral and psychosocial outcomes. METHODS: Ten schools participated in the sustainability study. Teachers completed a survey and interview, and research staff observed 1 physical education (PE) class within 2 years of the study's completion. Qualitative data were grouped by themes. Frequencies were calculated using quantitative data. RESULTS: All schools continued all-girls PE classes using New Moves components following the study period. Fewer schools continued the nutrition and social support classroom modules and individual coaching sessions while no schools continued lunch get-togethers. Program components were sustained in both New Moves intervention schools and control schools. CONCLUSIONS: Programs are most likely to be sustained if they (1) fit into the current school structure, (2) receive buy-in by teachers, and (3) require minimal additional funds or staff time. Providing control schools with minimal training and intervention resources was sufficient to continue program components if staff perceived the program was important for students' health and compatible within the school's existing infrastructure.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.252 | 0.500 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.011 | 0.019 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.022 | 0.023 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.013 |
| Research integrity | 0.008 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 0.002 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".