Interventions to change health-related behaviours typically have modest effects and may be more effective if grounded in appropriate theory. Most theories applied to public health interventions tend to emphasise individual capabilities and motivation, with limited reference to context and social factors. Intervention effectiveness may be increased by drawing on a wider range of theories incorporating social, cultural and economic factors that influence behaviour. The primary aim of this paper is to identify theories of behaviour and behaviour change of potential relevance to public health interventions across four scientific disciplines: psychology, sociology, anthropology and economics. We report in detail the methodology of our scoping review used to identify these theories including which involved a systematic search of electronic databases, consultation with a multidisciplinary advisory group, web searching, searching of reference lists and hand searching of key behavioural science journals. Of secondary interest we developed a list of agreed criteria for judging the quality of the theories. We identified 82 theories and 9 criteria for assessing theory quality. The potential relevance of this wide-ranging number of theories to public health interventions and the ease and usefulness of evaluating the theories in terms of the quality criteria are however yet to be determined.

/pdf/theories-of-behaviour-and-behaviour-change-across-the-social-1fqtu75p77.pdf

Theories of behaviour and behaviour change across the social and behavioural sciences: a scoping review

Background: Healthy children achieve better educational outcomes which, in turn, are associated with improved health later in life. The World Health Organization’s Health Promoting Schools (HPS) framework is a holistic approach to promoting health and educational attainment in school. The effectiveness of this approach has not yet been rigorously reviewed. Methods: We searched 20 health, education and social science databases, and trials registries and relevant websites in 2011 and 2013. We included cluster randomised controlled trials. Participants were children and young people aged four to 18 years attending schools/colleges. HPS interventions had to include the following three elements: input into the curriculum; changes to the school’s ethos or environment; and engagement with families and/or local communities. Two reviewers identified relevant trials, extracted data and assessed risk of bias. We grouped studies according to the health topic(s) targeted. Where data permitted, we performed random-effects meta-analyses. Results: We identified 67 eligible trials tackling a range of health issues. Few studies included any academic/ attendance outcomes. We found positive average intervention effects for: body mass index (BMI), physical activity, physical fitness, fruit and vegetable intake, tobacco use, and being bullied. Intervention effects were generally small. On average across studies, we found little evidence of effectiveness for zBMI (BMI, standardized for age and gender), and no evidence for fat intake, alcohol use, drug use, mental health, violence and bullying others. It was not possible to meta-analyse data on other health outcomes due to lack of data. Methodological limitations were identified including reliance on self-reported data, lack of long-term follow-up, and high attrition rates. Conclusion: This Cochrane review has found the WHO HPS framework is effective at improving some aspects of student health. The effects are small but potentially important at a population level.

/pdf/the-world-health-organization-s-health-promoting-schools-39vx06p3y7.pdf

The World Health Organization's Health Promoting Schools framework: a Cochrane systematic review and meta-analysis.

The need for systematic methods for reviewing evidence is continuously increasing. Evidence mapping is one emerging method. There are no authoritative recommendations for what constitutes an evidence map or what methods should be used, and anecdotal evidence suggests heterogeneity in both. Our objectives are to identify published evidence maps and to compare and contrast the presented definitions of evidence mapping, the domains used to classify data in evidence maps, and the form the evidence map takes. We conducted a systematic review of publications that presented results with a process termed “evidence mapping” or included a figure called an “evidence map.” We identified publications from searches of ten databases through 8/21/2015, reference mining, and consulting topic experts. We abstracted the research question, the unit of analysis, the search methods and search period covered, and the country of origin. Data were narratively synthesized. Thirty-nine publications met inclusion criteria. Published evidence maps varied in their definition and the form of the evidence map. Of the 31 definitions provided, 67 % described the purpose as identification of gaps and 58 % referenced a stakeholder engagement process or user-friendly product. All evidence maps explicitly used a systematic approach to evidence synthesis. Twenty-six publications referred to a figure or table explicitly called an “evidence map,” eight referred to an online database as the evidence map, and five stated they used a mapping methodology but did not present a visual depiction of the evidence. The principal conclusion of our evaluation of studies that call themselves “evidence maps” is that the implied definition of what constitutes an evidence map is a systematic search of a broad field to identify gaps in knowledge and/or future research needs that presents results in a user-friendly format, often a visual figure or graph, or a searchable database. Foundational work is needed to better standardize the methods and products of an evidence map so that researchers and policymakers will know what to expect of this new type of evidence review. Although an a priori protocol was developed, no registration was completed; this review did not fit the PROSPERO format.

/pdf/what-is-an-evidence-map-a-systematic-review-of-published-22r0shpuf5.pdf

What is an evidence map? A systematic review of published evidence maps and their definitions, methods, and products

Barriers and Facilitators

There is increasing academic and policy interest in interventions aiming to promote young people's health by ensuring that the school environment supports healthy behaviours. The purpose of this review was to summarize the current evidence on school-based policy, physical and social-environmental influences on adolescent physical activity and sedentary behaviour. Electronic databases were searched to identify studies that (1) involved healthy adolescents (11-18 years old), (2) investigated school-environmental influences and (3) reported a physical activity and/or sedentary behaviour outcome or theme. Findings were synthesized using a non-quantitative synthesis and thematic analysis. Ninety-three papers of mixed methodological quality were included. A range of school-based policy (e.g. break time length), physical (e.g. facilities) and social-environmental (e.g. teacher behaviours) factors were associated with adolescent physical activity, with limited research on sedentary behaviour. The mixed-studies synthesis revealed the importance of specific activity settings (type and location) and intramural sport opportunities for all students. Important physical education-related factors were a mastery-oriented motivational climate and autonomy supportive teaching behaviours. Qualitative evidence highlighted the influence of the wider school climate and shed light on complexities of the associations observed in the quantitative literature. This review identifies future research needs and discusses potential intervention approaches to be considered.

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1111/obr.12352

The school environment and adolescent physical activity and sedentary behaviour: a mixed-studies systematic review

Background: In contrast to curriculum-based health education interventions in schools, the school
environment approach promotes health by modifying schools’ physical/social environment. This systematic
review reports on the health effects of the school environment and processes by which these might occur. It
includes theories, intervention outcome and process evaluations, quantitative studies and qualitative studies.
Research questions: Research question (RQ)1: What theories are used to inform school environment
interventions or explain school-level health inﬂuences? What testable hypotheses are suggested?
RQ2: What are the effects on student health/inequalities of school environment interventions addressing
organisation/management; teaching/pastoral care/discipline; and the physical environment? What are the
costs? RQ3: How feasible/acceptable and context dependent are such interventions? RQ4: What are the
effects on student health/inequalities of school-level measures of organisation/management; teaching/
pastoral care/discipline; and the physical environment? RQ5: Through what processes might such
inﬂuences occur?
Data sources: A total of 16 databases were searched between 30 July 2010 and 23 September 2010 to
identify relevant studies, including the British Educational Index, the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied
Health Literature, the Health Management Information Consortium, EMBASE, MEDLINE and PsycINFO. In
addition, references of included studies were checked and authors contacted.
Review methods: In stage 1, we mapped references concerning how the school environment affects
health and consulted stakeholders to identify stage 2 priorities. In stage 2, we undertook ﬁve reviews
corresponding to our RQs.

M Whitehead

Papers

Systematic review of the effects of schools and school environment interventions on health: evidence mapping and synthesis