Health Promoting Secondary Schools: Community-Based Research Examining Voice, Choice and the School Setting
- *Corresponding Author:
- Kai Bellows Riecken
School of Exercise Science
Physical and Health Education
PO Box 3015 STN CSC
University of Victoria, Canada
Tel: 250- 853-3140
E-mail: [email protected]
Received Date: October 31, 2013; Accepted Date: November 29, 2013; Published Date: December 07, 2013
Citation: Higgins JW, Voss C, Naylor PJ, Gibbons S, Rhodes R, et al. (2013) Health Promoting Secondary Schools: Community-Based Research Examining Voice, Choice and the School Setting. J Child Adolesc Behav 1: 118. doi:10.4172/2375-4494.1000118
Copyright: © 2013 Higgins JW, et al. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
Background: Health Promoting Secondary Schools (HPSS) was a ‘whole school’ program across five
intervention and five control high schools in British Columbia, Canada designed to improve the Moderate to Vigorous
Physical Activity (MVPA) and healthy eating behaviors of grade 10 students. HPSS was implemented over one
school year (2011-2012) and included classroom activities, changes to school policies, input from teachers and
students, student leadership opportunities, and was tailored for each school. Teachers were provided with choicebased
Physical Education (PE) and health curricula, as well as monetary grants to purchase equipment and supplies.
This manuscript presents an overview of the development and evaluation of HPSS.
Methods: This initiative employed mixed methods for data collection and analyses, including standardized
questionnaires, focus groups, accelerometers, and fitness testing over three phases of data collection (T1, T2, T3);
five key survey variables are discussed here to provide initial results on the effect of the HPSS model. The SHAPES
Questionnaire and 20-meter shuttle run were used to assess these outcome measures.
Results: A repeated measures ANOVA showed a decline in total MVPA (F=89.29, p<0.01) and weekday MVPA
(F=136.33, p<0.01) across groups pre to post-test; an interaction effect for fitness (F=5.66, p<0.05); a significant
decline in Sugar Sweetened Beverages (SSB) over time for both conditions (F=10.89, p<0.05); a non-significant
trend towards decreased screen time for the intervention group; and a significant interaction for fitness (F=5.61,
p<0.05).Time 1 to Time 3 was significant for fruit and vegetable intake (F=5.94, p<0.05) and approached a significant
interaction in favor of the control group (F=2.95, p=0.06), and an interaction for weekday PA (F=3.38, p<0.05).
Conclusions: Although many of the variables in this initial analysis did not yield a statistically significant
treatment effect, looking to effect sizes, trends, qualitative data and contextual factors may be helpful at this time in
order to refine the program and adhere to the goal of creating an initiative that can be improved and modified to be
utilized in other. It is also promising to see that the intervention group fared better in terms of fitness and weekday
MVPA decline than the control group despite the obstacles faced during the intervention year.