The Short- and Long-term Effectiveness of the WhyDairy? School-based Nutrition Education Intervention: A Randomized Controlled Trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Despite the known health benefits of dairy products, their daily consumption continues to decline in many populations, particularly in pre-adolescents and adolescents. Objective: The primary objective of the cluster randomized controlled trial was to assess whether a school-based intervention enhanced with a web-based component, known as WhyDairy? was more effective than a standardized dairy education program at changing: (i) knowledge of dairy products, (ii) intentions to consume dairy products, and (iii) dietary intake of dairy products. Methods: Grade 7 students (n=175) in 10 Southwestern Ontario schools were randomized by the school, into intervention or control. Intervention schools received the WhyDairy? intervention with a website component while control schools received a DFO education program. Intervention schools were further randomized to receive follow-up contact, through monthly emails, or no follow-up contact. A questionnaire, consisting of three surveys (knowledge, FFQ, and intention), was delivered at baseline, post-intervention, and follow-up. Results: All groups significantly increased their knowledge post-intervention but only intervention schools with follow-up email contact maintained this positive change in knowledge. No groups saw significant changes in dietary behaviour. The email campaign was successful in reaching parents but did not result in high engagement or changes in student outcomes. Conclusion: The results of this study demonstrate the effectiveness of a school-based intervention enhanced with a web-based component in changing student knowledge regarding dairy products and the engagement of the website during the intervention period. Future work should consider longer durations to see changes in dietary behaviour and more targeted approaches during follow-up periods.
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 | 0.006 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 0.001 |
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".