Effectiveness of school-based health promotion interventions prioritized by stakeholders from health and education sectors: A systematic review and meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Childhood obesity and associated modifiable risk factors exert significant burden on the health care system. The goal of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to examine the effectiveness of school-based intervention types perceived by Canadian stakeholders in health and education as feasible, acceptable and sustainable in terms of improving physical activity (PA), fruit and vegetable intake, and body weight. We searched multiple databases for studies that evaluated school-based interventions to prevent obesity and associated risk factors (i.e., unhealthy diet, physical inactivity, sedentary behaviour) in children aged 4-18 years from January 1, 2012 to January 28, 2020. From 10,871 identified records, we included 83 and 80 studies in our systematic review and meta-analysis, respectively. Comprehensive School Health (CSH) and interventions which focused on modifications to school nutrition policies showed statistically significant positive effects on fruit intake of 0.13 (95% CI: 0.04, 0.23) and 0.30 (95% CI: 0.1, 0.51) servings per day, respectively. No intervention types showed statistically significant effect on vegetable intake. CSH, modifications to physical education (PE) curriculum, and multicomponent interventions showed statistically significant difference in BMI of -0.26 (95% CI: -0.40, -0.12), -0.16 (95% CI: -0.3, -0.02), and -0.18 (95% CI: -0.29, -0.07), respectively. CSH interventions showed positive effect on step-count per day, but no other types of interventions showed significant effect on any of PA outcome measures. Thus, the results of this systematic review and meta-analysis suggest that decision-makers should carefully consider CSH, multicomponent interventions, modifications to PE curricula and school nutrition policies to prevent childhood obesity.
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 | 0.022 | 0.045 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.024 | 0.048 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 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".