Intervention Related Group (IRG) identification | 24 high schools * 3 strategies = 72 IRG: 36 IRG-A, 36 IRG-C |
---|---|
Intervention periods identification | 2 intervention periods = intervention implemented during the grade 10 and 11 school years |
Identification and categorisation of the programme actors | Supervisors: PRALIMAP monitors |
Anchor personnel: school professionals (administration staff, teachers, catering professionals, school nurses, …) | |
Targets: high school students | |
Indicator development | Non-programme-driven activities indicators: |
* Developed for the 72 IRG | |
* Concerned respectively the educational nutritional, screening and environmental activities performed independently of the PRALIMAP trial | |
Programme-driven activities indicators: | |
* Developed for the 36 IRG-A | |
* Concerned the PRALIMAP activities planned by the frame of reference: | |
- 12 IRG-Education: indicators investigated the delivery of lectures and collective works on nutrition and the participation in PRALIMAP meetings | |
-12 IRG-Screening, indicators investigated the delivery of weight and height data and of the proposition to participate to adapted overweight care management and the participation of students in group educational sessions | |
- 12 IRG-Environmental, indicators investigated the delivery of high school environment improvements (adapted food and physical activity availability) and participation in PRALIMAP parties | |
Data collection | Data collected before the programme implementation: |
* High schools nutritional environment (ex: water drinking fountain, proposed physical activities …) : nutritional surveys participated in by school staff | |
* Nutritional behaviours : adolescent self-administered questionnaires and anthropometric measures | |
Data collected during implementation: | |
* Activities delivery data: activity reports, pupil satisfaction surveys (care management, PRALIMAP meeting…) | |
* Appreciation of PRALIMAP trial : self administered questionnaire | |
* Evolution of the offer of school catering and physical activity free equipment and the nutritional environment close by the high school: nutritional surveys participated in by school staff | |
Data collectedat the end of the programme: | |
* Activities delivery, school staff and teenagers’ participation and favouring and limiting factors : | |
- focus group of staff responsible for interventional strategies (high school professionals, head teachers) | |
- individual semi-structured interview of the PRALIMAP monitors | |
- focus group of health professionals intervening with overweight and obese adolescents in high school screening | |
- nutritional survey of high school professionals and students | |
Data analysis and evaluation of indicators | Indicator report sheets are elaborated for every IRG including: |
* Quantitative indicators expressed in the form of mean or percentage (eg : pupils' activity participation rate) | |
* Qualitative (literal) indicators (eg : ranges of food proposed in the lunches, delivery or not of activity) | |
The number of indicator report sheets varied from 3 to 6 according to the high school assigned strategies (Table 3) : | |
*IRG–Education : 1 indicator report sheet of non-programme-driven activities + 1 indicator report sheet of programme-driven activities | |
*IRG–Education control : 1 indicator report sheet of non-programme-driven activities | |
*IRG– Screening : 1 indicator report sheet of non-programme-driven activities + 1 indicator report sheet of programme-driven activities | |
*IRG–Screening control : 1 indicator report sheet of non-programme-driven activities | |
*IRG–Environment : 1 indicator report sheet of non-programme-driven activities + 1 indicator report sheet of programme-driven activities | |
*IRG–Environment control : 1 indicator report sheet of non-programme-driven activities | |
Score assignment | Number of experts:18 (3 groups of 6) |
Type and specialty of experts: researchers, field professionals or decision-makers, specialists in diet, physical activity and\or evaluation, knowing or not the PRALIMAP trial, practicing or not in Lorraine Region | |
IRG assigned between the experts: the IRG were fairly and anonymously distributed among the experts | |
Individual scoring aid: IT (Excel®) | |
Scoring : ranging from 0 to 20 for every period, domain and characteristic in each IRG Threshold defined for the standard deviation and/or the range: if a standard deviation was higher than 2.5 or a range higher than 6 was observed, the experts debated and proposed a new notation; discrepant scores were then preserved. | |
Taking into account between-group variability: A fictitious high school was created and scored by the 3 groups | |
Intervention dose calculation | Application of intervention dose formula to assigned scores: Dose = DQt x (mean (DQl, PQt, PQl)/20) |
A group effect has been evidenced thanks to the fictitious high school and required score adjustment varying from 0.8 to 2.8 points. | |
Eventually 216 doses (108 per period) were calculated (Table 3). |