Process evaluation of fruit and vegetables distribution interventions in school-based settings: A systematic review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Despite the importance of process evaluation in program evaluations, research has focused primarily on the effectiveness of fruit and vegetables (FVs) distribution interventions on children's consumption, with little attention given to how these interventions achieve their outcomes. Five bibliographic databases (Embase, PubMed, ProQuest, Scopus, and Web of Science Core Collection) were searched in June 2019 for studies of interventions where the main focus was the implementation of distributed FVs to school-aged children as a snack. The Critical Appraisal Skills Programme (CASP) tool was used to appraise the risk of bias within included studies. Data were extracted based on study characteristics and findings. Results identified 24 studies reporting on 11 interventions and 1 policy. The findings of this systematic review indicate that the majority of the studies included limited references to implementation research. Recurring limitations include an absence of an evaluation theoretical framework and the data collection methods used. Also, several factors were identified as informing the success of snack-based FVs distribution programs, including participation of the school community, school characteristics, background knowledge, and parental engagement. Lack of timely FVs delivery, limited funding, inadequate awareness about the program, insufficient teachers' time, and food waste were identified as challenges to successful programming. Findings indicate that distributing FVs to school-aged children as a snack can increase their consumption, but only with proper implementation. Further evaluative research is required to better inform future implementation of snack-based FV distribution interventions in school settings.
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 | 0.012 | 0.022 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".