MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2160819243 · doi:10.22605/rrh1296

Implementing a whole school physical activity and healthy eating model in rural and remote First Nations schools: a process evaluation of Action Schools! BC

2010· article· en· W2160819243 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Patti‐Jean Naylor, Jenny Scott, Janine Drummond, Laura Bridgewater, Heather McKay, Constadina Panagiotopoulos

Bibliographic record

VenueRural and Remote Health · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicIndigenous Health, Education, and Rights
Canadian institutionsBC Children's HospitalVancouver Coastal HealthVancouver Coastal Health Research InstituteUniversity of British ColumbiaUniversity of OttawaUniversity of Victoria
FundersCanadian Council on LearningLawson FoundationCanadian Diabetes Association
KeywordsOverweightAction planRural areaPopulationMedicineMedical educationPsychologyObesityEnvironmental health

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

INTRODUCTION: Aboriginal people who reside in rural and remote areas of Canada often have poorer health than other Canadians. For instance, the prevalence rate of type 2 diabetes is 3 to 5 times higher than for the general population. Chronic disease risk factors such as obesity are also more prevalent. Overweight and obesity have become major health challenges for all Canadian children, but for Aboriginal children, the numbers are 2 to 3 times higher. 'Action Schools! BC' (AS! BC) is a whole-school framework designed as a positive approach to addressing childhood inactivity and unhealthy eating patterns during the school day that was effective for children in a large urban center. The purpose of this study was to explore the feasibility and implementation of AS! BC in 3 remote Aboriginal communities in northern British Columbia. METHODS: The AS! BC model provided tools for schools and teachers to create individualized 'action plans' to increase the opportunities for physical activity (PA) and healthy eating (HE) across 6 'action zones'. These zones included: (1) school environment; (2) scheduled physical education; (3) classroom action; (4) family and community; (5) extra-curricular; and (6) school spirit. Teachers (primarily generalists) were provided with the training and resources necessary to implement their action plan for their class. Schools had three visits from the AS! BC support team. Teachers received specialized training and support, a 'planning guide' and classroom-based resources. Gender- and skill-level-inclusive activities were prioritized. Although the model emphasized choice using a whole-school framework, 'classroom action' was a flagship component. Teachers were asked to provide students with a minimum of 15 additional minutes of PA each school day and at least one HE activity per month in the 'classroom action zone'. Information about implementation was gathered from weekly 'classroom logs' completed by teachers and focus groups with school staff. RESULTS: The logs showed that all 3 schools implemented physical activities (mean = 140 min/week, range = 7-360 min/week) and HE activities (mean = 2.3 times/week, range = 0-10 times/week) but this varied by school and teacher. Adherence to logging was low (34% of eligible weeks). Focus group data showed that the program was well received and that support from the AS! BC master trainer and support team was crucial to delivery of the program. Staff highlighted challenges (eg time, high staff turnover at the schools and lack of financial resources), but felt that with continued support and cultural adaptations they would continue to implement AS! BC in their schools. CONCLUSIONS: The evaluation demonstrated that AS! BC was appropriate and feasible for use in the First Nations schools in these rural and remote communities with some cultural adaptations and ongoing support. Rural and remote locations have very specific challenges that need to be considered in broader dissemination strategies.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.021
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.021
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.908
Threshold uncertainty score0.182

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0210.021
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0040.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0020.003
Research integrity0.0010.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.036
GPT teacher head0.398
Teacher spread0.362 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations46
Published2010
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRural and Remote HealthSame topicIndigenous Health, Education, and RightsFrench-language works237,207