Tools for a systematic appraisal of integrated community-based approaches to prevent childhood obesity

BMC Public Health

Table 2 Scores of the programmes on the each of the GPAT’s domains

Section	Main intervention characteristics^a	Monitoring and evaluation^b	Implementation^c	Total^d
Programme, Country	Main intervention characteristics^a	Monitoring and evaluation^b	Implementation^c	Total^d
Child health Programme, Cyprus	0.66	0.31	0.41	0.45
Salud Madrid, Spain	0.76	0.54	0.59	0.63
EPODE (Together let’s prevent childhood obesity!) Falndre Lys, France	0.41	0.31	0.45	0.41
JOGG (Youngsters at a Healthy Weight), The Netherlands	0.95	0.61	0.41	0.66
Keep fit, Poland	–	–	–	–
HELP initiative, Malta	0.75	0	0.45	0.40
MUNSI, Portugal	0.81	0.50	0.54	0.61
PAIDEIATROFI, Greece	0.71	0.38	0.45	0.51
Good Health Partille, Sweden	0.71	0	0.27	0.37
SETS movement, Romania	0.66	0.61	0.41	0.56
Sporttube, Slovakia	0.39	0	0.27	0.22
VIASANO, Belgium	0.6	0.54	0.18	0.44
Max score	1	1	1	1
# items scored	19	13	11	43

^a: The domain assesses the following elements: targets, relevance, sustainability, target group, partners and cooperation and planning
^b: The domain assesses the following elements: indicators and monitoring, measurements, statistical methods, result assessment, stakeholders and communication
^c: The domain assesses the following elements: performance, partners and cooperation, communication and documentation, target group participation and achievement of intervention objectives
^d: Characterization of the programme practice according to the score achieved: >0.8 = “Good practice”, 0.6–0.8 = “Acceptable practice”, 0.4–0.6 = “Marginal practice”, <0.4 = “Weak practice”

ISSN: 1471-2458