FreshRSS

🔒
❌ Acerca de FreshRSS
Hay nuevos artículos disponibles. Pincha para refrescar la página.
AnteayerTus fuentes RSS

Free school meals, diet quality and food insecurity in secondary school students: protocol for a multiple-methods study - the CANTEEN study

Por: Alving-Jessep · E. · Pallan · M. · Ansell · E. · Hamill · L. · McConnell · C. · McIlwee · D. · McKinley · M. C. · Moore · S. E. · Murphy · M. · Neville · C. · ONeill · C. · Sevel · E. · Adab · P. · Bryant · M. · Chambers · S. · Cardwell · C. R. · Ensaff · H. · Evans · C. · Reid · S. · Holfor
Introduction

Food insecurity is increasing in the UK, impacting choice and diet quality. The current means-tested free school meals (FSM) policy was put in place to address dietary inequalities and food insecurity in school children. In secondary schools, approximately 20% of students who are eligible and registered do not take their FSM. Working across a range of schools that have variable levels of FSM uptake, this study aims to evaluate the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of the current means-tested FSM policy in UK secondary schools on diet and food insecurity outcomes, understand what factors are associated with uptake and test the potential impact of any proposed policy change.

Secondary schools (n=32) in both Northern Ireland and the Midlands region of the UK are being recruited into the study. Data will be collected from school staff, governors, students and parents via questionnaires, as well as observational data of school eating environments. Qualitative data will be collected in selected case study schools (n=6–8). Multilevel modelling will be undertaken to evaluate the association between FSM uptake and fruit and vegetable intake, overall diet quality and food insecurity in all students. Economic evaluation will be conducted using a cost–utility approach. The effect of policy change will be modelled and school factors associated with FSM uptake explored using multiple methods.

Ethics and dissemination

Ethical approval has been obtained from Queen’s University Belfast Faculty of Medicine, Health and Life Sciences Research Ethical Committee (MHLS 23_55). Findings will be disseminated to key national and local agencies, to schools through reports and presentations, and to the public through media and open access publications.

Investigating the long-term public health and co-benefit impacts of an urban greenway intervention in the UK: a natural experiment evaluation - study protocol

Por: Hunter · R. F. · Cleland · C. · Wang · R. · ONeill · C. · Mullineaux · S. · Tate · C. · Kücükali · H. · Akaraci · S. · OKane · N. · Garcia · L. · Clarke · M. · Cardwell · C. R. · Jones · S. · Maguire · A. · Ellis · G. · Murtagh · B. · Jurek-Loughrey · A. · Bryan · D. · Barry · J. · Hilto
Introduction

Urban green and blue space (UGBS) interventions, such as the development of an urban greenway, have the potential to provide public health benefits and multiple co-benefits in the realms of the environment, economy and society. This paper presents the protocol for a 5-year follow-up evaluation of the public health benefits and co-benefits of an urban greenway in Belfast, UK.

Methods and analysis

The natural experiment evaluation uses a range of systems-oriented and mixed-method approaches. First, using group model building methods, we codeveloped a causal loop diagram with stakeholders to inform the evaluation framework. We will use other systems methods including viable systems modelling and soft systems methodology to understand the context of the system (ie, the intervention) and the stakeholders involved in the development, implementation and maintenance phases. The effectiveness evaluation includes a repeat cross-sectional household survey with a random sample of 1200 local residents (adults aged ≥16 years old) who live within 1 mile of the greenway. The survey is complemented with administrative data from the National Health Service. For the household survey, outcomes include physical activity, mental well-being, quality of life, social capital, perceptions of environment and biodiversity. From the administrative data, outcomes include prescription medications for a range of non-communicable diseases such as cardiovascular disease, type II diabetes mellitus, chronic respiratory and mental health conditions. We also investigate changes in infectious disease rates, including COVID-19, and maternal and child health outcomes such as birth weight and gestational diabetes. A range of economic evaluation methods, including a cost-effectiveness analysis and social return on investment (SROI), will be employed. Findings from the household survey and administrative data analysis will be further explored in focus groups with a subsample of those who complete the household survey and the local community to explore possible mechanistic pathways and other impacts beyond those measured. Process evaluation methods include intercept surveys and direct observation of the number and type of greenway visitors using the Systems for Observing Play and Recreation in Communities tool. Finally, we will use methods such as weight of evidence, simulation and group model building, each embedding participatory engagement with stakeholders to help us interpret, triangulate and synthesise the findings.

Ethics and dissemination

To our knowledge, this is one of the first natural experiments with a 5-year follow-up evaluation of an UGBS intervention. The findings will help inform future policy and practice on UGBS interventions intended to bring a range of public health benefits and co-benefits. Ethics approval was obtained from the Medicine, Health and Life Sciences Research Ethics Committee prior to the commencement of the study. All participants in the household survey and focus group workshops will provide written informed consent before taking part in the study. Findings will be reported to (1) participants and stakeholders; (2) funding bodies supporting the research; (3) local, regional and national governments to inform policy; (4) presented at local, national and international conferences and (5) disseminated by peer-review publications.

❌