Skip to main content

Table 4 Effectiveness of policies on dietary behaviors

From: Impact of school policies on non-communicable disease risk factors – a systematic review

Study

Design

Policy

Outcomes

Specific outcome

Impact (+) Favorable and significant change

(=) No change

Strength of Association

Blum et al., 2008 [28]

Quasi-experimental

Elimination from SSB (Diet) and other junk food in schools food policy

Sugar-sweetened beverages consumption

SSB

=

Consumption of SSB decreased in both intervention and control boys (F = 53.69, P < .05) and girls (F = 22.87, P < .05). Intervention girls decreased diet soda consumption as compared to control girls (F = 6.57, P < .05)

Diet soda

=

Juice

=

Johnson et al., 2009 [29]

Cross-sectional

School district SSB policies

Sugar-sweetened beverages consumption

SSBs

+

β = − 9.50, p < .0002

Schwartz et al., 2009 [30]

Quasi- Experimental

Removal of snacks of low nutritional value

Consumption of beverages, salty snack, and sweet snack

Beverages

+

β = −.23, p < .05

Salty snack

+

β = −.30, p < .05

Sweet snack

=

Not reported

French et al., 2004 [31]

RCT

School nutrition policy initiative: Food availability in à la carte areas; Peer promotions

Lower-fat food choices, Added fats score, Fruit and vegetable score

Lower-fat food choices

=

% Yes: Intervention (Baseline 0.29 First year 0.28 Second year 0.28) Control (Baseline 0.23 First year 0.26 Second year 0.24; p = 0.62)

Added fats score

=

% Yes: Intervention (Baseline 2.5 First year 2.6 Second year 2.4) Control (Baseline 2.6 First year 2.7 Second year 2.5; p = 0.97)

Fruit and vegetable score

=

% Yes: Intervention (Baseline 2.7 First year 2.9 Second year 2.9) Control (Baseline 2.8 First year 3.1 Second year 3.1; p = 0.95)

Foster et al., 2008 [14]

RCT

School self-assessment; nutrition education; nutrition policy; social marketing; and parent outreach.

Total energy consumed (kilo- joules), fat consumption (grams), and the number of fruit and vegetable servings

Energy

=

Adjusted difference:

−104.27 (−234.28, 25.73) p = 0.12

Fat consumption

=

Adjusted difference:

−3.78 (−8.59, 1.02) p = 0.12

Fruit and vegetable servings

=

Adjusted difference:

−0.04 (−0.37, 0.3) p = 0.82

Fung et al., 2013 [21]

Cross-sectional

School food and nutrition policy (Children’s Lifestyle and School Performance Study-CLASS)

Fruit/vegetable, grain products, milk products, meat and alternatives, soda intake, SSBs,

Fruit/vegetable

=

β = −0.08 (−0.27, 0.19)

Grain products

+

β = 0.26 (0.17, 0.34)

Milk products

+

β = 0.24 (0.18, 0.31)

Meat and alternatives

+

β = 0.06 (0.03, 0.09)

Soda intake

+

β = −0.09 (−0.11, −0.06)

SSBs

+

β = −0.20 (−0.27, −0.12)

Moore and Tapper, 2008 [32]

RCT

Fruit Truck Shops

Consumption of fruit and sweet and savoury snacks

Fruits

=

β = 0.06 (−0.1, −0.21)

Sweets, Chocolates, Biscuits

=

β = −0.1 (−0.3, 0.01)

Crisps

=

β = −0.05 (−0.2, 0.06)

Jaenke et al., 2012 [33]

Quasi- Experimental

Nutrition education, gardening program

Fruit and vegetable intake

Fruits

=

P = 0.93

Vegetables

+

P = 0.67

Knox et al., 2012 [22]

RCT

Brisk Walking Lessons

Consumption of total fat, saturated fat, carbohydrates, proteins, fiber, and total calories

Consumption of total fat, saturated fat, carbohydrates, proteins, fiber, and total calories

=

Non-significant changes, effect, estimates not reported

Covelli, 2008 [27]

Quasi-experimental - Repeated Measures

Integration of health promotion in existing curriculum (Provision of cognitive behavioral components of health knowledge, health promotion concepts, nutrition, and exercise).

Fruits/vegetables per day

Fruits/vegetables per day

+

Fruits/vegetables per week: Intervention (Baseline 2.6 Follow up 4.9) Control (Baseline 2.7 Follow up 2.5; p = 0.0001)

Llargues et al., 2011 [23]

RCT

Teacher Training, Develop activities related to food habits and/or physical activity

Fruits, vegetables, SSBs, Sweets, Fizzy drinks

Fruits

=

No changes: Intervention 84.2% (p = 0.36) Control 80.0% (0.18)

Vegetables

=

No changes: Intervention 73.1% (p = 0.58) Control 81.4% (0.84)

Sweets

=

No changes: Intervention 93.7% (p = 1.0) Control 94.3% (0.7)

Fizzy drinks

=

No changes: Intervention 87.9% (p = 1.0) Control 89.2% (0.12)

Vandongen et al., 1995 [26]

Cross-Sectional

Guidance around fitness and nutrition (Fitness, Fitness + School Nutrition, School Nutrition, School and home nutrition, home nutrition, All groups together

Fat, sugar and protein

Fat

Boys =Girls +

Fat % energy (Intervention Baseline: 33.1 (32.7, 33.7) Follow up: 33.7 (33.1, 34.3) Control Baseline: 33.2 (32.7, 33.7) Follow up: 33.2 (31.5, 34.9)

Sugar

Boys + Girls =

Sugar % energy (Intervention Baseline: 22.8 (22.1, 23.5) Follow up: 21.9 (21.2, 22.7) Control Baseline: 21.7 (20.0, 23.3) Follow up: 23.3 (21.4, 25.3)

Protein

Boys + Girls +

Protein (% energy) Intervention Baseline: 15.5 (15.3, 15.8) Follow up: 15.6 (15.2, 15.9) Control Baseline: 15.8 (15.1, 16.4) Follow up: 14.7 (13.9, 15.4)

Harris et al., 1997 [34]

Quasi- Experimental

Modified school lunches, Enhanced nutrition education and increased opportunities for physical activities

Knowledge and awareness regarding nutrition

Awareness levels

+

(t [33] = −6.64, p < .0001)

O’Brien et al., 2010 [35]

Cross-Sectional

Comprehensive school health education, physical education and physical activity, school nutrition and food services, health promotion and wellness, school counselling physical and behavioral health services, school climate, physical environment, youth, parent, family and community involvement

SSB consumption

Two or more sodas/week

+

OR: 0.83 (p = .023)

Spence et al., 2013 [36]

Natural Experiment

Nutrient-based standards

Non-milk extrinsic sugar

% energy NMES

=

Mean difference: −2.6 (−3.2, −1.9) (p < 0.001)