Table 2.

Summary of identified school and community based programs among children and adolescents in the Pacific Islands.

Authors	Name of Study	Participants	Intervention/Strategy	Results
Varman S. et al. (2013) [37]	-	230 Fijian primary schools	Healthy canteen guidelines regulating availability of energy-dense nutrient-poor foods and providing access to healthy products. The study sites were 230 primary schools in Fiji’s Western Division.	33 (14%) schools had no canteen data. Of the 197 schools with canteen data, 31 (14%) schools were fully compliant
Gatti C. et al. (2015) [38]	Tubuai Island College Intervention	Intervention group: School students aged 10–18 years (n = 240). The group was divided based on attendance status: external collegians, half residents and full residents. Control group: School students aged 10-18 years (n = 90) from a neighboring island	5-month controlled trial set in the Tubuai Island college in French Polynesia. School nutrition program: aimed to offer healthier foods in the school canteen. Participants also received information on healthy lifestyles. Food sellers surrounding the college were encouraged to promote fruit, water and diet drink sales. Parents could also attend several sessions before, during and after the program to advice parents about benefits of healthy lifestyles. Physical activity program: 2–4 h of canoe training was implemented each week. Intervention groups were exposed to the intervention differently based on their attendance status. For example, external collegians did not eat in the school canteen whereas full residents at all meals at the school canteen. Control group received no intervention.	Weight increased significantly in all groups except for residents after 5 months of follow up. Intervention group had a significantly lower rate of weight gain than controls. Control group: adjusted weight gain was 4.2 kg (95% CI, 3.4–5.0) after 5 months. Intervention group adjusted difference in weight change was −3.4 kg (95% CI, −4.3 to −2.5). The proportion of adolescents who lost weight increased (p < 0.001) with exposure to healthy food and physical activity.
Fotu K.F. et al. (2011) [39]	Ma’alahi Youth Project	School students aged 11–19 years. (Intervention group at baseline n = 1083 and follow up n = 815. Comparison group at baseline n = 1396, follow up n = 897)	Tongan arm of the OPIC project. Intervention was conducted in three districts of the main island of Tongatapu (Houma, Nukunuku and Kolonga). School students attending all six secondary schools on the island of Vava’u were used as a comparison. Used social marketing approaches and community capacity building. Included school policies, community breakfasts, vegetable gardens, infrastructure provisions and activities, such as fun runs. Content varied by location. Baseline data collected between September 2005 and March 2006 with second baseline data collection in February and March 2007. Follow up data was collected between April and December 2008.	No significant difference in weight, BMI or prevalence of overweight/obesity between intervention and comparison groups. Adjusted weight (kg) difference was 0.05 (p = 0.89) and adjusted BMI difference was −0.02 (p = 0.36). Adjusted body fat percentage difference was -1.46 (p < 0.001). Intervention participants reported increased intake of SSBs (significantly greater than comparison groups).
Kremer P. et al. (2011) [40]	Healthy Youth Healthy Communities (HYHC)	Adolescents aged 13–18 years (Intervention group at baseline n = 2670 and follow up n = 879. Comparison group at baseline n = 4567 and follow up n = 2069)	Fijian arm of the OPIC project conducted over three school years (2006–2008) but with total of just over 2 years actual intervention exposure. Intervention conducted in Nasinu and three towns on the western side of Viti Levu were used as comparison regions. Multiple sites including faith-based organizations and schools. Intervention strategies included policy changes, education programs, and activities in schools and infrastructure changes. Content varied by location.	No significant difference in weight or BMI between intervention and comparison groups. The intervention group also reported poorer quality of life at follow up. Adjusted differences in weight (kg) and BMI were 0.05 (p = 0.81) and 0.10 (p = 0.13), respectively.