Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31991622›Full record

ArticleInternational journal of environmental research and public health2020

Implementation of KEIGAAF in Primary Schools: A Mutual Adaptation Physical Activity and Nutrition Intervention.

Sacha R B Verjans-Janssen, Sanne M P L Gerards, Anke H Verhees, Stef P J Kremers, Steven B Vos, Maria W J Jansen, Dave H H Van Kann

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in International journal of environmental research and public health, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

10 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors.

Sacha R B Verjans-JanssenDepartment of Health Promotion, NUTRIM School of Nutrition and Translational Research in Metabolism, Maastricht University, 6229 HA Maastricht, The Netherlands.
Sanne M P L GerardsDepartment of Health Promotion, NUTRIM School of Nutrition and Translational Research in Metabolism, Maastricht University, 6229 HA Maastricht, The Netherlands.
Anke H VerheesDepartment of Health Promotion, NUTRIM School of Nutrition and Translational Research in Metabolism, Maastricht University, 6229 HA Maastricht, The Netherlands.
Stef P J KremersDepartment of Health Promotion, NUTRIM School of Nutrition and Translational Research in Metabolism, Maastricht University, 6229 HA Maastricht, The Netherlands.
Steven B VosDepartment of Industrial Design, Eindhoven University of Technology, 5612 AZ Eindhoven, The Netherlands.
Maria W J JansenAcademic Collaborative Center for Public Health, Public Health Service South-Limburg, 6400 AA Heerlen, The Netherlands.
Dave H H Van KannDepartment of Health Promotion, NUTRIM School of Nutrition and Translational Research in Metabolism, Maastricht University, 6229 HA Maastricht, The Netherlands.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

School health promotion is advocated. Implementation studies on school health promotion are less often conducted as effectiveness studies and are mainly conducted conventionally by assessing fidelity of "one size fits all" interventions. However, interventions that allow for local adaptation are more appropriate and require a different evaluation approach. We evaluated a mutual adaptation physical activity and nutrition intervention implemented in eight primary schools located in low socioeconomic neighborhoods in the Netherlands, namely the KEIGAAF intervention. A qualitative, multiple-case study design was used to evaluate implementation and contextual factors affecting implementation. We used several qualitative data collection tools and applied inductive content analysis for coding the transcribed data. Codes were linked to the domains of the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research. NVivo was used to support data analysis. The implementation process varied greatly across schools. This was due to the high level of bottom-up design of the intervention and differing contextual factors influencing implementation, such as differing starting situations. The mutual adaptation between top-down and bottom-up influences was a key element of the intervention. Feedback loops and the health promotion advisors played a crucial role by navigating between top-down and bottom-up. Implementing a mutual adaptation intervention is time-consuming but feasible.

Indexed as

ExerciseSchoolsChildHealth PromotionHumansNetherlandsNutrition AssessmentProgram EvaluationSchool Health Servicesadaptationcontextimplementationqualitativeschool health promotion

Identifiers

PMID31991622
PMCPMC7037055

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.