Data extraction table for included studies

Alaimo et al. [43]
Study characteristics	Design: nonrandomized trial
	Setting: Middle school
	Population: Michigan, USA
n (number of participants)	Baseline: HSAT: 24 (schools); HSAT + SNAK: 5 (schools); HSAT + MSBE: 25 (schools);Control: 21 (schools)	Follow-up: HSAT: 18 (schools); HSAT + SNAK: 5 (schools); HSAT + MSBE: 22 (schools);Control: 20 (schools)
Intervention description (implementation strategy categorized by EPOC)	Intervention description: Healthy School Actions Tools (HSAT) included questions on the following topics: school nutrition policies, school nutrition environment, school health education programs including nutrition education, and food service programs. - At the end of each module, schools were to brainstorm several “bright ideas” they could implement. Schools identified bright ideas for each section were shown together to facilitate the development of an action plan with goals (tailored interventions). - Schools were asked to prioritize goals and received funding to implement nutrition education or nutrition activities in their action plans and compensate for any loss in canteen revenue (external funding). - Schools were provided with a facilitator meeting to assess nutrition environments and policies (educational outreach visits). - Guidance documents were provided to school staff (educational materials). - Schools established a coordinated school health team (local consensus approach). - Implementation of policy in cafeteria à la carte lines (clinical practice guidelines).
Comparator description	Usual practice or waitlist control
Implementation outcomes	Outcome: mean nutrition policy score (range 0–6) and mean nutrition education and/or practice change score (range 0–14)
	Measure: The Middle-School School Environment and Policy Survey was completed either online or by paper. There were two versions of the survey: one for administrators and one for food service directors.
	Results: Median (range) nutrition policy score: 0.65 (0.2–1.1)
Cunningham-Sabo et al. [44]
Study characteristics	Design: RCT
	Setting: Elementary school
	Population: New Mexico and South Dakota, USA
n (number of participants)	Baseline: Intervention: 19 (schools); Control: 20 (schools)	Follow-up: Intervention: 19 (schools); Control: 20 (schools)
Intervention description (implementation strategy categorized by EPOC)	Intervention description: Components included a classroom curriculum, new skills and activities for the school physical education classes, activities and events with the families, and skill building with school food service - The intervention included the development of nutrient guidelines operationalized as behavioral guidelines (clinical practice guidelines). Training sessions were conducted twice each school year with food service staff. Schools also received at least five kitchen visits in the first year and eight or more visits to each school in the second and third years (educational outreach visits). - Materials and activities for the training sessions and kitchen visits were developed (educational materials). - The food service working group met annually and held monthly conference calls to establish and carry out the intervention (educational meetings).
Comparator description	Usual practice
Implementation outcomes	Outcome: percentage calories total fat breakfast (%) and percentage energy from total fat Lunch (%)
	Measure: All schools had a Pathways notebook with forms to be completed for each meal per day. On the form each food item was listed with a complete description of the food, the serving size, and the number of students served the food. Separate forms were completed for breakfast and lunch.
	Results: Median (range) nutrient content of school meals % of calories from fat breakfast/ lunch: −3% (−3.3% to −2.7%)
Delk et al. [46]
Study characteristics	Design: Cluster-RCT
	Setting: Middle schools
	Population: Central Texas, USA
n (number of participants)	Baseline: Basic: 10 (schools); Basic Plus: 10 (schools); Basic Plus SM: 10 (schools)	Follow-up: 10 (schools); Basic Plus: 10 (schools); Basic Plus SM: 10 (schools)
Intervention description (implementation strategy categorized by EPOC)	Intervention description: Promote the adoption of active breaks (ABs) by teachers. - In promoting ABs, we developed a CATCH Middle School ABs guide. Each school received 10 hard copies of the ABs and an electronic version. ABs stated the amount of time required, contained instructional content, identified equipment needed (clinical practice guidelines). - A CATCH Team was developed at each school, consisting of staff members, parents and community members (local consensus approach) - Schools were required to send representatives from their CATCH Team to 8 trainings and were assigned a CATCH facilitator to conduct visits at these schools (educational meetings). - A CATCH facilitator was assigned and conducted monthly visits at these schools. During these visits strategies to help CATCH Teams promote ABs on their campus were developed (educational outreach visits and tailored interventions). - Social marketing campaigns to promote physical activity (other)
Comparator description	Different implementation strategy
Implementation outcomes	Outcome: Teacher reported frequency of AB implementation including: Have you conducted at least one AB this year; Percentage of teachers that conducted activity breaks weekly (%, N); Last week, did you conduct an activity break on at least 1 day? (%, N)
	Measure: The survey is a 15-item, self-administered questionnaire that includes items on teacher implementation of ABs, encouragement of specific health behaviors, and other process evaluation measures for the CATCH program
	Results: Median (range) % of teachers that conducted activity breaks weekly: 13.3% (11.1% to 15.4%); Median (range) % implementing a variety of policies and practices: 26.5% (19.4% to 31.9%)
French et al. [47]
Study characteristics	Design: Cluster-RCT
	Setting: High school
	Population: Minneapolis, USA
n (number of participants)	Baseline: Intervention: 10 (schools); Control: 10 (schools)	Follow-up: Intervention: 10 (schools); Control: 10 (schools)
Intervention description (implementation strategy categorized by EPOC)	Intervention description: Increasing the availability of lower-fat foods in cafeteria à la carte areas and implementing school-wide, student-based promotions of these lower-fat foods. The goal was to increase lower-fat à la carte food availability by 30% relative to baseline. The ultimate goal was to have 50% of products be lower fat. - Quarterly meetings between researchers and staff were held to review progress toward goals (local consensus approach). - Development of tailored lists of high and low fat foods for schools (tailored interventions) - Staff worked with the student groups and their faculty advisors to train the students for specific promotional activities (educational meetings) - Student groups were offered financial incentives for completing each promotion (pay for performance)
Comparator description	Usual practice or waitlist control
Implementation outcomes	Outcome: Students seen any posters in school about cafeteria food choices; Students heard any messages over public address system, in school; Students heard about any contests or events at school about cafeteria food choices; Students took part in any taste tests, food samplings, or contests in the school cafeteria; Percentage low-fat à la carte foods
	Measure: Complete à la carte inventories in intervention and control schools were conducted by trained research staff at baseline and after the second intervention year
	Results: Median (range) % of program implementation: 33% (11% to 41%)
Heath and Coleman [48]
Study characteristics	Design: nonrandomized trial
	Setting: Elementary schools
	Population: West Texas and East New Mexico, USA
n (number of participants)	Baseline: Intervention: 20 (schools); Control: 4 (schools)	Follow-up: Intervention: 20 (schools); Control: 4 (schools)
Intervention description (implementation strategy categorized by EPOC)	Intervention description: CATCH intervention was delivered at school level to: reduce the total fat content of food served to 30% and reduce the total sodium content to 600 mg ‐ 1000 mg per serving. - Staff received training sessions (educational meetings). - Staff received ongoing support visits to implement EATSMART/ CATCH PE (educational outreach visits). Educational materials were provided to staff/schools. Smart choices manual was provided to all schools (educational materials).
Comparator description	Usual practice
Implementation outcomes	Outcome: % fat in breakfast; Sodium (mg) in breakfast; % fat in lunch; Sodium (mg) in lunch
	Measure: Menus and recipes were collected for 5 consecutive days during each semester in every year of the study. Recipes for these menus were obtained by interviewing cooks and kitchen managers in school cafeterias and by reviewing the cafeteria production sheets for each meal. Foods from the menus, production sheets, and recipes were entered into a nutritional database that is especially useful for ethnic foods. Once the nutrient content of the meals was analyzed, averages of breakfast and lunch values across the 5 days of data collection were obtained.
	Results: % fat in school meal: −1.7% (−4.4% to 1%); Sodium of school meals: −29.5 (−48 to −11)
Hoelscher et al. [49]
Study characteristics	Design: nonrandomized trial
	Setting: Elementary schools
	Population: Texas, USA
n (number of participants)	Baseline: Intervention: 15 (schools); Control: 15 (schools)	Follow-up: Intervention: 15 (schools); Control: 15 (schools)
Intervention description (implementation strategy categorized by EPOC)	Intervention description: Target multiple aspects of the school environment, including the classroom, nutrition services and the cafeteria environment, physical education activities, family and home environment, and, via school health promotion messages and events, the broader school community. - Coordinated school health CATCH training and booster training sessions and community workshops (educational meetings). - Program materials, CATCH component coordination kit and health promotion resources (educational materials). - CATCH committee meetings (local consensus approach) - Recognition and funds for CATCH through rewards program (pay for performance) - School social marketing efforts (use of information and communication technology) - Family fun night activities (other) - Community member required on CATCH committee and CATCH community workshops (local consensus approach) - CATCH facilitator support visits (2–3 visits/4–6 weeks) (educational outreach visit).
Comparator description	Different implementation strategy
Implementation outcomes	Outcome: Continuous: CATCH parent and extracurricular activities, CATCH coordinated healthy eating–related activities, CATCH coordinated physical activity–related activities, Number of CATCH lessons taught, Number health lessons taught Dichotomous: % Reporting CATCH lessons in schoolroom, % Reporting that fruit usually served at lunch
	Measure: Structured interview with CATCH Champion and self‐administered questionnaire for classroom teachers
	Results: Mean number of lessons/or activities: 0.8 (−0.4 to 1. 2) % implementing a variety of policies and practices: 4.4% (3.6% to 5.2%)
Lytle et al. [50]
Study characteristics	Design: RCT
	Setting: Middle schools
	Population: Minneapolis. USA
n (number of participants)	Baseline: 8 (schools); Control: 8 (schools)	Follow-up: 8 (schools); Control: 8 (schools)
Intervention description (implementation strategy categorized by EPOC)	Intervention description: Teens Eating for Energy and Nutrition at School (TEENS) was a school‐based intervention trial with a goal of developing and evaluating school and family‐linked intervention strategies to promote students’ consumption of fruit, vegetable, and lower fat snacks. TEENS intervention included classroom, family, school policy, and food service components. - School Nutrition Advisory Councils were established to convene school and parental stakeholders to discuss and propose school-level policy to improve the school food environment (local opinion leaders and local consensus approach). - District food service directors and workers from intervention schools attended training that emphasized the importance of offering more fruit and vegetables, gave them new tools for promoting fruit, vegetable, and lower fat snacks (educational materials and educational meetings).
Comparator description	Usual practice or waitlist control
Implementation outcomes	Outcome: Food offered: Foods to limit and foods to promote. Foods sold: Foods to limit and foods to promote
	Measure: Data collected included the total number of students served the meal pattern lunch, the types and amounts of fruit and vegetable choices offered and sold, and the number of vegetable salads sold. With a few exceptions, these data were extracted from schools’ food production records.
	Results: % of schools offering or selling targeted foods: 8.5% (4% to 12%)
Mobley et al. [51]
Study characteristics	Design: RCT
	Setting: Middle schools
	Population: 10 districts across USA
n (number of participants)	Baseline: Intervention: 21 (schools); Control: 21 (schools)	Follow-up: Intervention: 21 (schools); Control: 21 (schools)
Intervention description (implementation strategy categorized by EPOC)	Intervention description: Lower the average fat content of food served in schools; serve at least 2 servings of fruit and/or vegetables per student and at least 1 serving per student each day; serve all dessert and snack foods with ≤ 200 kcal per single size serving and/or package; eliminate milk >1% fat, all other added sugar beverages, and 100% fruit juice; serve at least 2 servings of high fiber grain‐based foods and/or legumes per student and at least 1 serving per student each day. - Provision of staff training and educational events (educational meetings). - “Taste tests” of new products and unfamiliar foods, including conducting comparison of available items (educational games). - Intervention schools received funding to defray expenses and potential loss of income, cafeteria enhancements and to attend training (external funding). - Research staff worked with food service managers to identify barriers and develop solutions for schools to achieve selected goals (tailored interventions). - Curricula, posters, brief messages displayed near serving lines (educational materials). - Research staff met weekly with food service staff to observe the food environment and to plan and support goal achievement (educational outreach visits) - Engagement with social marketing experts to generate content (use of information and communication in technology) - Meetings with district level staff and buyers who procure food and with food distributors, to solicit support for change (other)
Comparator description	Usual practice or waitlist control
Implementation outcomes	Outcome: 12 scores across the following variables: Lower than average fat content; serve two servings of fruit and vegetables; serve all desert and snack foods with <200 kcal; eliminate milk >1% fat; serve at least two servings of high fiber
	Measure: Data collected by trained staff not involved in the intervention. Nutrition data were extracted from food service management source documents maintained by school food service personnel.
	Results: % schools meeting various nutrition goals: 15.5% (0% to 88%)
Nathan et al. [52]
Study characteristics	Design: nonrandomized trial
	Setting: Elementary schools
	Population: NSW, Australia
n (number of participants)	Baseline: Intervention: 407 (schools); Control: 316 (schools)	Follow-up: Intervention: 388 (schools); Control: 258 (schools)
Intervention description (implementation strategy categorized by EPOC)	Intervention description: Structured multi-strategy intervention was developed based on theoretical frameworks of practice change and recommendations from reviews and implementation studies conducted in schools and other settings - Program materials, including curriculum resources and information to parents (educational materials) - Staff training and professional development (educational meetings). - School consensus approach, as well as leadership support and enhancement (local consensus approach and local opinion leaders). - School-specific follow-up support (tailored interventions) - Incentives in the form of material goods (other) - Implementation feedback, including performance monitoring (monitoring the performance of the delivery of the health care).
Comparator description	Minimal support control
Implementation outcomes	Outcome: The prevalence of vegetable and fruit breaks.
	Measure: Principal reported computer‐assisted telephone interviewing (CATI).
	Results: % Schools implementing a vegetable and fruit break: 16.2% (5.6% to 26.8%)
Nathan et al. [53]
Study characteristics	Design: RCT
	Setting: Elementary schools
	Population: NSW, Australia
n (number of participants)	Baseline: Intervention: 28 (schools); Control: 25 (schools)	Follow-up: Intervention: 27 (schools); Control: 24 (schools)
Intervention description (implementation strategy categorized by EPOC)	Intervention description: State government had introduced a healthy school canteen policy. Utilizing a “traffic light” food classification system, the policy classifies foods and beverages sold in school canteens as either “red,” “amber” or “green” based on their nutritional content. For all foods sold in the canteen at recess and lunch the policy requires schools to remove all red foods from regular sale and to fill the menu with green foods and to not let amber foods dominate the menu. - Schools were provided with a written feedback report on their previously supplied canteen menu (audit and feedback). - Canteen managers were asked to send an updated version of the menu for review and a second feedback report was generated (continuous quality improvement). - Canteen managers were provided with a “Canteen Resource Kit” containing various printed and electronic instructional materials, including electronic menu and pricing templates (educational materials) - 1 day (5 hr) group-training workshop was offered to canteen - managers and parent representatives providing education and skill development in the Fresh Tastes@ School policy, label reading, canteen stock and financial management, pricing and promotion, and change management (educational meeting) - The workshop provided opportunities for canteen managers to participate in consensus processes through the development of a canteen action plan (local consensus approach). - School principals were asked to demonstrate their support for implementation of the Fresh Tastes @ School policy (local opinion leader) - The feedback report included a sample “compliant” menu, individually tailored to the schools (tailored interventions) - Canteen managers received two support contacts per school term via text messages. These contacts provided targeted advice to overcome common barriers to policy implementation and encouraged canteen managers to review progress against their action plan (other).
Comparator description	Usual practice
Implementation outcomes	Outcome: Proportion of schools with a menu that did not include red or banned foods and beverages and the proportion of schools where green items make up the majority of the menu (more than 50 % of menu items).
	Measure: Audits of canteen menus faxed or emailed to the project team by the school.
	Results: % implementing a variety of policies and practices: 35.5% (30.0% to 41.1%)
Naylor et al. [54]
Study characteristics	Design: cluster-RCT
	Setting: Elementary schools
	Population: British Columbia, Canada
n (number of participants):	Baseline: Intervention: 7 (schools); Control: 3 (schools)	Follow-up: Intervention: 7 (schools); Control: 3 (schools)
Intervention description (implementation strategy categorized by EPOC)	Intervention description: - The AS! BC model provided tools for schools and teachers to create individualized Action Plans that increased PA opportunities across Six Action Zones: School Environment, Scheduled physical education (PE), Classroom Action, Family and Community, Extra‐curricular, Spirit (tailored interventions). - Teachers received teacher-on-call support to attend a Classroom Action training session (half-day) from the AS! BC Support Team and School Facilitators (educational meetings) - A committee of school stakeholders, including grade teachers, administrators, parents, health, sport/recreation practitioners, was developed (local consensus approach). Teachers had weekly contact with the School Facilitator who would come to the classroom to provide mentorship and demonstrate activities (educational outreach visits).
Comparator description	Usual practice or waitlist control
Implementation outcomes	Outcome: Minutes per week of physical activity
	Measure: Teachers at Intervention schools were asked to complete weekly activity Logs during Phases I and II. Teachers recorded daily, the type, frequency and duration (minutes) of PA implemented in the classroom, in PE or in the other Action Zones. Activity Logs were collected monthly by the School Facilitators.
	Results: Minutes per week of physical activity implemented in the classroom: 54.9 min (46.4–63.4)
Perry et al. [56]
Study characteristics	Design: cluster-RCT
	Setting: Elementary schools
	Population: California, Louisiana, Minneapolis and Texas, USA
n (number of participants)	Baseline: CATCH 1: 28 (schools); CATCH 2: 28 (schools); Control: 40 (schools)	Follow-up: CATCH 1: 28 (schools); CATCH 2: 28 (schools); Control: 40 (schools)
Intervention description (implementation strategy categorized by EPOC)	Intervention description: EATSMART: to reduce the total fat content of food served to 30%, to reduce the total sodium content to 600‐1000 mg per serving, recommendations to lower the total cholesterol in foods offered. CATCH PE: increase the amount of PE time that students spent in MVPA to 40% of class time. - Staff received training sessions to deliver EATSMART and CATCH PE (educational meetings). - Staff received ongoing support visits to implement EATSMART/CATCH PE (educational outreach visits). - Educational materials were provided to staff for EATSMART and CATCH PE (educational materials). Families were engaged by Family Fun Nights and home curricula (other).
Comparator description	Usual practice or waitlist control
Implementation outcomes	Outcome: Mean % of kilocalories from fat in lunches, Mean mg of sodium in lunches, cholesterol mg in lunches (mean), quality of PE lesson % of seven activities observed
	Measure: Quality of PE lesson: Direct observation. Nutrient content: School menu information were collected from schools. Staff conducted in‐person interviews with the cooks about the menus and recipes using standardized probes for ingredients and preparation methods.
	Results: % of kilocalories from fat in school lunch: −4.3% (−5.8% to −2.8%) Mean mg of sodium in lunches: −100.5 (−167.6 to −33.4) Cholesterol mg in lunches: −8.3 (−16.7 to 0.1) Quality of PE lesson % of seven activities observed: 14.3% (11.6% to 17.0%)
Perry et al. [55]
Study characteristics	Design: cluster-RCT
	Setting: Elementary schools
	Population: Minnesota, USA
n (number of participants)	Baseline: Intervention: 13 (schools); Control: 13 (schools)	Follow-up: Intervention: 13 (schools); Control: 13 (schools)
Intervention description (implementation strategy categorized by EPOC)	Intervention description: Increasing the availability, appeal, and encouragement of fruits and vegetables in the school lunch program; emphasizing changes in the lunch line; and the school snack cart; increase the quality and quantity of fruits and vegetables served; increase the choices of fruits and vegetables in the lunch line, and to vary the type and preparation methods daily; special events to promote fruits and vegetables. - Monthly meetings were held with the cook managers to discuss and share implementation issues and new ideas during the 1st school year (educational meetings and local consensus approach). - Intervention staff visited schools weekly, on average, and supported the activities (educational outreach visits). - The “High 5 Flyers” that were hung in posters around the school cafeteria (educational materials). Sampling of fruit and vegetables, class challenges (other).
Comparator description	Usual practice or waitlist control
Implementation outcomes	Outcome: Verbal encouragement by food staff (mean % of observations), number of fruits and vegetables on the snack cart (mean), number of fruits and vegetables students can choose (mean), fruit and vegetables rated as appealing (mean %).
	Measure: Direct observations of the lunchroom, lunch line, food cart, and food service staff behavior.
	Results: % of program implementation: 14% (−2% to 30%) Mean number of fruit and vegetables available: 0.64 (0.48–0.80)
Sallis, 1997
Study characteristics	Design: nonrandomized trial
	Setting: Elementary schools
	Population: California, USA
n (number of participants)	Baseline: Intervention: 2 (schools); Control: 3 (schools)	Follow-up: Intervention: 2 (schools); Control: 3 (schools)
Intervention description (implementation strategy categorized by EPOC)	Intervention description: Sports, Play and Active Recreation for Kids (SPARK) PE was designed to be a comprehensive program for upper elementary students to increase physical activity. Designed to influence the quantity and quality of elementary PE lessons and the amount of PE through: # Lessons per week and minutes of PE per week. - Written curriculum guide identified the program philosophy and goals and included a yearly plan which was divided into instruction units with activity progressions within each unit (educational materials). - An additional 30 min per week was allocated for classroom instruction and practices in self-management activities and skills (length of consultation). - Equivalent types of equipment were provided to all seven schools, including control schools, and replacement equipment was added each year (other). - On-site support which was provided during the 3 years ensured the curriculum was followed. A PE specialist provided feedback, encouragement and direct assistance during schools visits (educational outreach visits). - Classroom teachers were trained to implement SPARK PE (educational meetings).
Comparator description	Usual practice or waitlist control
Implementation outcomes	Outcome: Duration (minutes) per week of physical education lessons and frequency (per week) of physical education lessons
	Measure: Direct observation by trained assessors for one full week twice a year in each school year.
	Results: Duration (minutes) per week of physical education lessons: 26.6 (15.3–37.9) Frequency (per week) of physical education lessons: 0.8 (0.3–1.3)
Saunders, 2006
Study characteristics	Design: RCT
	Setting: High school
	Population: South Carolina, USA
n (number of participants)	Baseline: Intervention: 12 (schools); Control: 12 (schools)	Follow-up: Intervention: 12 (schools); Control: 12 (schools)
Intervention description (implementation strategy categorized by EPOC)	Intervention description: Focused on changing personal, social, and environmental factors related to physical activity and involved changes to the school environment and instructional programs. Instructional program components included changes in physical education and health instruction to enhance physical activity self‐efficacy and enjoyment. Schools were not required to implement a specific LEAP curriculum. Rather, to change instructional practice. The environmental strategy involved changing school practices that encouraged and supported physical activity and included changes to school health services, faculty staff health promotion, school environment, and school community linkages. - Two full-time program support staff provided (educational outreach visits). - Each LEAP team was headed by a LEAP champion who was usually the teacher responsible for girls PE (local opinion leaders). - Staff training consisted of formal workshops and one-on-one technical assistance for school personnel (educational meetings). - LEAP staff maintained a wide range of resources (educational materials). - LEAP staff worked with the LEAP champion and the LEAP team in each school to identify opportunities to enhance the environment or change school policy in support of physical activity (local consensus approach). - Equipment, such as hand weights, exercise bands, pedometers, for intervention schools (other).
Comparator description	Usual practice or waitlist control
Implementation outcomes	Outcome: School physical activity team, School administrator supports physical activity promotion, Emphasizes lifelong physical activity, Includes cooperative activities, School nurse counseling for physical activity, Adult modeling of physical activity through faculty/staff health promotion, Health education reinforces messages and skills taught in physical education, Community agency involvement, Family involvement.
	Measure: The organizational assessment interview was a 22‐item interview (10–15 min) conducted by the independent process evaluator in all intervention and control schools with a school administrator, to assess organizational‐level components.
	Results: School level policy and practice related to physical activity from the school administrators perspective
Simons-Morton, 1988
Study characteristics	Design: nonrandomized trial
	Setting: Elementary schools
	Population: Texas, USA
n (number of participants)	Baseline: Intervention: 2 (schools); Control: 2 (schools)	Follow-up: Intervention: 2 (schools); Control: 2 (schools)
Intervention description (implementation strategy categorized by EPOC)	Intervention description: Innovations introduced into the schools included: 1) the new school lunch,) and 2) health education for healthful diet. Implementation of each of the program components required organizational changes in school programs and in the roles and practices of school personnel. - Project staff examined existing menu planning, food purchasing and recipe selection practices (monitoring of performance). - Practice changes in four areas purchasing, menu planning, recipes, and food preparation were identified and negotiated with the food service director and with intervention school cafeteria managers (local consensus processes). - Food handlers received six hours of summer in-service training conducted by the project staff in cooperation with cafeteria managers (educational outreach visits). - The staff dietitian served as consultant and was present in the treatment schools on a regular basis (managerial supervision). - Six health education modules on diet were provided, which included visual aids and teaching materials ready to be handed out to the children (educational materials). - Classroom modules were developed by project staff with the aid of a classroom teacher who had recently retired from the school district (local opinion leaders). - Children were eligible to receive token incentives, such as stickers and sweat bands, upon completion of the major learning activities (other).
Comparator description	Usual practice
Implementation outcomes	Outcome: Sodium content of school meals mg by schools, Fat content of school lunches (g).
	Measure: Recipe analyses, based on detailed interviews with each were conducted by trained staff nutritionists and analyzed by the Nutrition Coding Center (NCC).
	Results: Macronutrient content of school meals
Story, 2000
Study characteristics	Design: Cluster-RCT
	Setting: Elementary schools
	Population: Minnesota, USA
n (number of participants)	Baseline: Intervention: 10 (schools); Control: 10 (schools)	Follow-up: Intervention: 10 (schools); Control: 10 (schools)
Intervention description (implementation strategy categorized by EPOC)	Intervention description: Intervention strategies were (a) point‐of‐purchase promotion of fruit and vegetable using characters and messages, (b) increasing the appeal of fruit and vegetable, (c) increasing the variety and choice of fruit and vegetable served, and (d) offering an additional fruit choice on days when baked or frozen desserts were served. - Centralized training sessions were held for food service staff from the intervention schools. It was held during a regularly scheduled school day and was conducted by the 5-a-Day Power Plus staff. Food service staff attended the teacher training for 2 hr and also attended 2 hr training after school each of the 2 intervention years (educational meetings). - A local producer provided some fruit and vegetable for use in classroom taste testing, home snack packs, and to expand choice in school lunch. They also provided a 30 min presentation on fruit and vegetable to each classroom (other).
Comparator description	Usual practice
Implementation outcomes	Outcome: Mean number of fruit and vegetable choices available, Mean number of fruit and vegetable choices available, Mean % of 8 guidelines on how to offer appealing fruit and vegetable, Mean % of 8 guidelines on how to offer appealing fruit and vegetable, Mean % of 4 fruit and vegetable promotions, Mean % of 4 fruit and vegetable promotions.
	Measure: Direct observations using trained observers and standardized protocols and instruments.
	Results: Mean number fruit and vegetables available: 1.15 (1–1.3) % of guidelines implemented and % of promotions held: 38.4% (28.5% to 43.8%)
Sutherland, 2017
Study characteristics	Design: Cluster-RCT
	Setting: Elementary schools
	Population: NSW, Australia
n (number of participants)	Baseline: Intervention: 25 (schools); Control: 21 (schools)	Follow-up: Intervention: 25 (schools); Control: 21 (schools)
Intervention description (implementation strategy categorized by EPOC)	The evidence‐based school physical activity program known as SCORES (Supporting Children’s Outcomes using Rewards, Exercise and Skills) was rolled out in primary schools and the implementation intervention strategies facilitated its roll out. - Schools were provided feedback on the implementation of the intervention on three occasions via email (audit and feedback). - Teachers were provided with resources, including lesson booklets, posters, whistles, lanyards and fundamental motor skills cards (educational materials). - Teachers were offered a 90 min professional learning workshop including theory and practical sessions. The workshop focused on delivery of fundamental motor skills to students, strategies to improve lesson quality through student engagement and increase students’ MVPA (educational meeting), - Teaching with experienced Health Promotion staff with a PE background was offered to classroom teachers in intervention schools (educational outreach visits). - A meeting with school executive was held at the commencement of intervention and a school champion nominated for each school (local opinion leader). - Additional support was provided to classroom teachers via five short video clips viewed in staff meetings, reinforcing the quality PE teaching principles (other).
Comparator description:	Usual practice or waitlist control
Implementation outcomes	Outcome: school PA policy or plan (% of schools), overall lesson quality score, recess PA (mean % of days offered), lunch PA (mean % of days offered), provision of sports equipment at recess (mean % of days offered), provision of sports equipment at lunch (mean % of days offered), provision of parent newsletters regarding PA.
	Measure: Survey and observation
	Results: % implementing a variety of policies and practices: 19% (16% to 22%) Physical education lesson quality score: 21.5 % of program implementation: −8% (−18% to 2%)
Whatley Blum, 2007
Study characteristics	Design: nonrandomized trial
	Setting: High school
	Population: Maine, USA
n (number of participants)	Baseline: Intervention: 4 (schools); Control: 3 (schools)	Follow-up: Intervention: 4 (schools); Control: 3 (schools)
Intervention description(implementation strategy categorized by EPOC)	Intervention description: Implementing low‐fat, low‐sugar and portion controlled guidelines in à la carte and vending (snack and beverage) programs. - Visits by research staff to each schools food and beverage supplier to identify items that met the guidelines (educational outreach visits). - Suppliers who stocked vending machines were given lists of the available items and letters sent home to parents and students informing them of changes incentives. Banners were also displayed to promote healthier foods and taste testing was conducted (educational materials). - Modification of recipes and preparation techniques by research and food service personnel (clinical practice guidelines). - Food service directors were given lists of available products/vendors that met guidelines (procurement and distribution of supplies). - Presentations describing guidelines made to school staff (educational meeting). - Funding allocated to school liaison personnel (external funding). - A committee at each school site was created. A liaison identified at each school was responsible for establishing a committee to promote the healthy changes at the school (local consensus approach). - Communication between the project team and schools began in 2004 to obtain the cooperation of school administration and meet food service personnel (other).
Comparator description:	Usual practice or waitlist control
Implementation outcomes:	Outcome: % items meeting nutrient criteria in à la carte, % items meeting nutrient criteria in snack vending, % items meeting nutrient criteria in beverage vending, % items meeting nutrient and proportion criteria in à la carte, % items meeting nutrient and proportion criteria in snack vending, % items meeting nutrient and proportion criteria in beverage vending.
	Measure: Observation and recording of items sold was taken at breakfast and lunch at cafeterias
	Results: % of food and beverage items meeting guideline nutrient and portion criteria: 42.95% (15.7% to 60.6%)
Wolfenden, 2017
Study characteristics	Design: RCT
	Setting: Elementary schools
	Population: NSW, Australia
n (number of participants)	Baseline: Intervention 35 (schools); Control: 35 (schools)	Follow-up: Intervention: 27 (schools); Control: 30 (schools)
Intervention description(implementation strategy categorized by EPOC)	Intervention description: Sought to increase implementation of a healthy canteen policy. Specifically, the intervention assisted schools to remove “red” and “banned” menu items from regular sale and increase the availability of “green” items to more than 50% of menu items. - Feedback menu reviews were conducted quarterly and the results were used to compile written feedback reports to the canteen manager and school principal (audit and feedback). - Support officers contacted canteen managers every 2 months throughout the intervention and used a continuous quality improvement framework of repeated goal setting, action planning, self-monitoring and problem-solving with canteen managers (continuous quality improvement). - Schools were also offered a small reimbursement to cover the costs associated with canteen manager attendance at training (external funding). - Printed instructional materials, sample policies/menus, planning templates and pricing guides were provided to all school canteen managers (educational materials). - Canteen managers, canteen staff and parent representatives were invited to attend a training workshop (5 hr) with the aim of providing education and skill development in the policy, nutrition and food label reading (educational meeting). - Canteen visits were conducted 1 and 3 months post-canteen manager training (educational outreach visits). - Meetings between support officers and canteen staff were held to discuss and reach consensus regarding the policy (local consensus process). - Executive support school principals were asked to communicate support for policy implementation and maintenance to teachers, parents, students and canteen managers (local opinion leader). - Individualized goal setting, action planning with canteen managers at different schools (tailored interventions). - Quarterly project newsletters communicated key messages, provided information and case studies of successful implementation approaches to common barriers (other).
Comparator description	Usual practice
Implementation outcomes	Outcome: Proportion of schools with a menu that did not contain foods or beverages restricted for sale under the policy, proportion of schools where healthy canteen items represented more than 50% of menu items.
	Measure: Canteen menus were collected and audited by two dietitians independently.
	Results: % implementing a variety of policies and practices: 66.6% (60.5% to 72.6%)
Yoong, 2016
Study characteristics	Design: RCT
	Setting: Elementary schools
	Population: NSW, Australia
n (number of participants)	Baseline: Intervention 36 (schools); Control: 36 (schools)	Follow-up: Intervention: 29 (schools); Control: 24 (schools)
Intervention description(implementation strategy categorized by EPOC)	Intervention description: - Consisting of up to four menu audits together with verbal and/or written feedback delivered by Health Promotion Officers as part of routine service delivery in the study region (audit with feedback). - During feedback calls the Health Promotion Officer tailored the discussion to the needs of the Canteen Manager based on previous contact; and monitored their actions and progress toward their goals, set new goals where required, or monitored compliance (continuous quality improvement). - Schools were provided with “Fresh Tastes @ School” resources, healthy food guidelines, a menu planning template, sample policies and menus, pricing guides and a local suppliers buyer’s guide (educational materials). - The specific number of menu audits, feedback reports and calls provided was tailored depending on each school’s compliance with the guidelines and whether menu changes had occurred (tailored interventions).
Comparator description	Usual practice
Implementation outcomes	Outcome: Proportion of schools having a canteen menu that did not contain any “red” foods or “banned” drinks, proportion of schools having a canteen menu that contained > 50% “green” items.
	Measure: Menu audits by trained dietitians
	Results: % implementing a variety of policies and practices: 21.6% (15.6% to 27.5%)
Young, 2008
Study characteristics	Design: RCT
	Setting: Middle schools
	Population: Six districts across USA
n (number of participants)	Baseline: Intervention: 18 (schools); Control: 18 (schools)	Follow-up: Intervention: 18 (schools); Control: 18 (schools)
Intervention description(implementation strategy categorized by EPOC)	Intervention description: Health education, PE, science or homeroom teachers attended workshops to teach a series of six lessons that promoted development of behavioral skills associated with physical activity. - PE teachers received instructional materials for PE lessons (educational materials). - PE teachers received regular on-site support to conduct lessons that encouraged active participation of girls during PE classes and to promote out-of-class physical activity (educational outreach visits). - Health education, PE, science or homeroom teachers attended workshops to teach a series of six lessons that promoted development of behavioral skills associated with physical activity (educational meetings). - Collaborations were created between schools, community agencies and staff to increase girl‐focused physical activity programs outside of PE classes (interprofessional education). - Program champions were directed the intervention to enhance its sustainability in the third year (local opinion leaders). - Intervention goals were identified for optimal intervention implementation (local consensus processes).
Comparator description	Usual practice
Implementation outcomes	Outcome: average number of physical activity programs, students encouraged for out‐of‐PE‐class physical activity (% of classes), teacher strategies to minimize management time (% classes), students provided with choices (% of classes), students encouraged for in‐class physical activity (% classes), student equipment ratio was appropriate for activity (% classes), group sizes appropriate for activity (% of classes), % of school reporting collaborations.
	Measure: Surveys of physical activity program leaders
	Results: % implementing a variety of policies and practices: 9.3% (−6.8% to 55.5%) Average number of physical activity programs taught: 5.1 (−0.4 to 10.6)
Bremer, 2018
Study characteristics	Design: nonrandomized trial
	Setting: Middle schools
	Population: Ontario, Canada
n (number of participants)	Baseline: Intervention: 19 (classes); Control: 11 (classes)	Follow-up: Intervention: 19 (classes); Control: 11 (classes)
Intervention description(implementation strategy categorized by EPOC)	Intervention description: The intervention consisted of a physical activity (PA) program designed by a national organization with expertise in school-based physical activity programming and delivered in school by teachers. The program was offered to students in grades 4 through 8 and consisted of 20 min of structured PA in school for 20 consecutive weeks. - School teachers and student leaders attended a one-day workshop on how to deliver the program as part of regular school activities and were provided with instructional materials to take back to their school for program delivery (educational meetings). - This workshop was intended to increase teachers’ confidence to implement daily physical activity through the use of the manual and supporting resources (educational materials).
Comparator description	The remaining teachers were however still expected to provide DPA to their students, as per the Ontario education curriculum.
Implementation outcomes	Outcome: Adherence to the program, student behavior, and physical activity opportunities.
	Measure: A 21-item questionnaire was developed for this study. Completed by the homeroom teacher at the last measurement point, it included 3 sections: adherence to the program, student behavior, and physical activity opportunities.
	Results: Quantity physical education lessons: t(27) = −0.23, p = .82
Cheung, 2019
Study characteristics	Design: nonrandomized trial
	Setting: Elementary schools
	Population: Georgia, USA
n (number of participants)	Baseline: Intervention: 71 (schools); Control: 62 (schools)	Follow-up: Intervention: 71 (schools); Control: 62 (schools)
Intervention description(implementation strategy categorized by EPOC)	Intervention description: Power Up for 30 (PU30) is a state-wide initiative to increase PA in school which allows tailoring of the initiative at the school level to encourage 30 min of PA outside physical education each day. - A tailored full-day training based on evidence-based strategies for increasing PA before, during (recess, in-class PA), and after school. PU30 recommended at least one administrator, one PE teacher, and one grade level chair from each school attend the training at an area school (educational meetings).Schools received low- and no-cost resources including exercise DVDs, PowerPoint files, and an online resource guide containing links to web-based PA videos, PA curricula, and integrated PA-academic lessons (educational materials).
Comparator description	Usual practice
Implementation outcomes	Outcome: Crude mean (standard deviation) minutes of physical activity (PA) offered per week for trained and untrained schools at baseline and follow-up.
	Measure: School PA survey adapted from widely used school PA survey tools. PE teachers provided data regarding PE, before school and after schools PA opportunities, while grade teachers provided data regarding recess and in-class PA breaks.
	Results: Crude mean (standard deviation) minutes of physical activity (PA) offered per week:During PE: Baseline: intervention 107.7 (4.4), control 105.6 (5.3)Follow-up: intervention 104.9 (4.3), control 105.5 (5.5)During recess: Baseline: intervention 89.8 (4.2), control 100.3 (3.9)Follow-up: intervention 98.7 (3.6), control 96.2 (3.6)In-class PA: Baseline: intervention 40.5 (2.6), control 30.4 (2.3)Follow-up: intervention 51.9 (2.5), control 36.1 (2.6)
Egan, 2018
Study characteristics:	Design: nonrandomized trial
	Setting: Elementary schools
	Population: South Eastern state, USA
n (number of participants):	Baseline: Group 1: 3 (classes); Group 2: 3 (classes); Group 3: 3 (classes); Control: 3 (classes)	Follow-up: Group 1: 3 (classes); Group 2: 3 (classes); Group 3: 3 (classes); Control: 3 (classes)
Intervention description(implementation strategy categorized by EPOC)	Intervention description: PACES is a pilot intervention program focused on increasing children’s PA during regular school hours. It specifically targets two components: (a) physical education and (b) PA during school (i.e. opportunities to be active beyond physical education). We employed three partnership approaches (communities of practice, community-based participatory research, and service learning) based on Webster, Beets et al.’s (2015) partnership model with the aim of providing external support for the participating classroom teachers in the intervention classrooms and, subsequently, increasing the extent of MI in these classrooms. - Community-based participatory research involved a member of the research team meeting with each teacher individually to share baseline PA and MI results (educational outreach visits). - During the meeting, the research team identified current MI strengths and areas for improvement, collaboratively set personalized MI goals, and consider suitable resources, including those posted on the community of practice (audit with feedback). - The community-based participatory research strategy also included identifying each teacher’s specific MI requests and preferences (tailored interventions). - Schools had access to the Move for Thought website, which included educational materials, videos and links (educational materials).
Comparator description	Group 1: Received the first PACES partnership approach (community of practice); Group 2: Received the first two approaches (community of practice and community-based participatory research); Group 3: Received all three approaches; Control: Usual practice
Implementation outcomes	Outcome: Implementation of teacher directed transition, implementation of other movement - nonacademic, Other movement academic, Non-teacher directed transition
	Measure: Twelve research assistants coded video records (n = 57) using the System for Observing Student Movement in Academic Routines and Transitions (SOSMART).
	Results: Total implementation: Group 1: baseline 44.0, follow-up 39.13, change −4.87; Group 2: baseline 50.9, follow-up 54.27, change 3.37; Group 3: baseline 49.63, follow-up 50.73, change 1.10; Control: baseline 36.30, follow-up 35.37, change −0.93Implementation of teacher directed transition: Group 1: baseline 17.83, follow-up 14.87, change −2.97; Group 2: baseline 17.03, follow-up 20.60, change 3.57; Group 3: baseline 24.40, follow-up 21.07, change −3.33; Control: baseline 18.24, follow-up 20.20, change 1.95Implementation of other movement - nonacademic: Group 1: baseline 3.23, follow-up 2.20, change −1.00; Group 2: baseline 1.83, follow-up 4.90, change 3.07; Group 3: baseline 1.20, follow-up 12.50, change 11.33; Control: baseline, 0.59, follow-up 0.00, change -0.59Other movement academic: Group 1: baseline 2.17, follow-up 3.60, change 1.43; Group 2: baseline 0.50, follow-up 1.17, change 0.67; Group 3: baseline 1.43, follow-up 0.80, change -0.63; Control: baseline 1.18, follow-up 5.45, change 4.28Non-teacher directed transition: Group 1: baseline 20.77, follow-up 18.47, change −2.27; Group 2: baseline 31.53, follow-up 27.50, change -4.00; Group 3: baseline 22.67, follow-up 16.37, change −6.30; Control: baseline 16.16, follow-up 9.36, change −6.79
Evenhuis, 2018
Study characteristics	Design: nonrandomized trial
	Setting: Elementary schools
	Population: Netherlands
n (number of participants)	Baseline: Intervention: 10 (schools); Control: 10 (schools)	Follow-up: Intervention: 10 (schools); Control: 10 (schools)
Intervention description(implementation strategy categorized by EPOC)	Intervention description: The intervention schools received support to implement the “Guidelines for Healthier Canteens”; i.e. an advisory meeting and report, communication materials, newsletters, an online community and a factsheet with student’s wishes/needs - Canteen advisors also measured the extent to which canteens met the Guidelines for Healthier Canteens, using the online tool “the Canteen Scan” (audit and feedback) - School canteen advisors provided tailored advice in an advisory meeting (educational outreach visits) - Schools received communication materials, newsletter with information and had access to a closed Facebook community (educational materials).
Comparator description	Control schools only received the guidelines.
Implementation outcomes	Outcome: Changes in school canteen: product availability on display, vending machines and product accessibility
	Measure: Changes in the school canteen were assessed using the “Canteen Scan,” an online tool to measure product availability on displays and vending machines, and product accessibility
	Results: Availability of healthier products on display: (mean) Intervention: baseline 45.80 (27.12), follow-up 77.29 (13.41)*, p = .007; Control: baseline 50.40 (23.00), follow-up 60.10 (15.67), p value not reportedAccessibility criteria: Intervention: baseline 44.00 (20.66), follow-up 60.00 (21.60), p = .03;Control: baseline 43.00 (20.58), follow-up 50.00 (14.91), p value not reported
Farmer, 2017
Study characteristics	Design: Cluster-RCT
	Setting: Elementary schools
	Population: Otago and Auckland, New Zealand
n (number of participants)	Baseline: Intervention: 8 (schools); Control: 8 (schools)	Follow-up: Intervention: 8 (schools); Control: 8 (schools)
Intervention description(implementation strategy categorized by EPOC)	Intervention description: The researchers, playworker and school community worked together to develop a playground action plan that met the needs of each school community. Following baseline evaluations of their play space, each intervention school was provided with a list of tailored suggestions for improvements. This was specific to each school but could include the addition of more interactive play equipment, and alterations to school rules and policies that may limit risk-taking during play, with all alterations meeting playground safety standards. The research team met with each school community to finalise the plan. - Provided with funds to assist with altering school play spaces (incentives). - The researchers, playworker and school community worked together to develop a playground action plan that met the needs of each school community (local consensus approach). - School was provided with a list of tailored suggestions for improvements. This was specific to each school but could include the addition of more interactive play equipment, and alterations to school rules and policies that may limit risk-taking during play with all alterations meeting playground safety standards (tailored interventions).
Comparator description	Usual practice
Implementation outcomes	Outcome: Physical activity policies within their school (break time, using physical activity as a punishment, promotion of community activities, adequacy and availability of facilities during school/after hours, enjoyment and promotion of PA regardless of skill level, amount and quality of physical education, and safety.
	Measure: principals completed an 18-item questionnaire assessing physical activity policies within their school. Principals indicated whether the policies were fully in place (score of 3), partially in place (2), under development (1), or not in place (0).
	Results: School policy regarding physical activity: Follow-up: intervention 76.2% (10.4), control 76.4% (10.6), p = .568Provision of play opportunities: mean difference: 4.50 (95% confidence interval: 1.82–7.18, p = .005
Nathan, unpublished
Study characteristics:	Design: Cluster-RCT
	Setting: Elementary schools
	Population: Hunter region of New South Wales, Australia
n (number of participants):	Baseline: Treatment 1: 3 (schools); Treatment 2: 3 (schools); Treatment 3: 3 (schools); Control: 3 (schools)	Follow-up: Treatment 1: 3 (schools); Treatment 2: 3 (schools); Treatment 3: 3 (schools); Control: 3 (schools)
Intervention description(implementation strategy categorized by EPOC)	Intervention description: Three key opportunities were targeted to improve physical activity. PE teachers were supported to program PE by developing a sequential plan for each school class. Sport teachers were supported to program sufficient time for sport and maximize student activity. Teachers were supported to integrate short bouts of activity into class routines, such as energizers or active lessons. - Teachers were provided with examples of school and classroom plans that show teachers how to implement 150 min of organized activities consistent with the policy across the school week (educational materials). - Support officers met with all teachers once as a group in each school for 1–2 h to introduce the in-school champion and their role in implementing the intervention and as a point of support in the school; to provide instruction on the development of how to implement 150 min of organized activities consistent with the policy across the school week (educational outreach visits). - Support officers provided technical assistance to schools throughout the study period to support policy implementation (centralized technical assistance). - Support officers met with principals and school executive to communicate the importance and benefits of scheduled PA. Principals and the executive were asked to demonstrate support for implementing the policy (mandate change). - Each school nominated at least 2 in-school champions who were existing teachers at the school (identify and prepare champions). - Support officers provided in-school champions with support remotely, that is,via telephone or e-mail twice per term to support implementing the intervention (other).
Comparator description	Treatment 1: PA support; Treatment 2: Lunchbox support; Treatment 3: Both PA support and lunchbox support; Control: Usual practice
Implementation outcomes	Outcome: Mean minutes of teachers’ scheduled PA
	Measure: at the end of each day for one school week teachers completed a paper-based log book. This included the time they engaged in all teaching activities across all subjects each day including the duration PA was provided.
	Results: Mean minutes of teachers’ scheduled PA: Follow-up: intervention 135.95 (59.46), control 99.04 (51.83), p = .04
Taylor, 2018
Study characteristics	Design: Cluster-RCT
	Setting: Elementary schools
	Population: Northern California, USA
n (number of participants)	Baseline: Intervention: 1 (schools); Control: 1 (schools)	Follow-up: Intervention: 1 (schools); Control: 1 (schools)
Intervention description(implementation strategy categorized by EPOC)	Intervention description: Incorporates 5 program objectives: (1) increase nutrition knowledge and use of science processing skills among fourth-grade children; (2) promote availability, consumption, and enjoyment of fruits and vegetables in the school environment; (3) improve dietary patterns and encourage physical activity; (4) foster positive changes in the school environment; and (5) facilitate development of an infrastructure to sustain the program. - The school district was provided $3000 to increase procurement of regionally grown produce for use in the National School Lunch Program (incentives). - Program activities included 20 hr of classroom education using an inquiry-based, garden-enhanced nutrition curriculum (educational outreach visits). - Take-home activities, materials and family newsletters (educational materials).
Comparator description	Usual practice or waitlist control
Implementation outcomes	Outcome: Fruit and vegetable availability
	Measure: Based on produce expenditures and variety for use in the schools. Procurement records were used to determine how many different types of fruits and vegetables were offered
	Results: Fruit offered daily by schools: Baseline: 4.33 ± 0.82 control, 4.80 ± 1.10 intervention, p = .44; Follow-up: 4.17 ± 0.75 control, 4.17 ± 0.98, p = 1.00Vegetables offered daily by schools: Baseline:2.67 ± 0.52 control, 5.40 ± 1.95 intervention, p = .03; Follow-up: 3.00 ± 0.89 control, 8.33 ± 0.82 intervention, p < .001
Waters, 2017
Study characteristics	Design: Cluster-RCT
	Setting: Elementary schools
	Population: Northern California, USA
n (number of participants)	Baseline: Intervention: 12 (schools); Control: 12 (schools)	Follow-up: Intervention: 12 (schools); Control: 10 (schools)
Intervention description(implementation strategy categorized by EPOC)	Schools were supported to develop fun “n healthy programs according to the fixed requirement of a whole school combined focus on increasing fruit, vegetable and water consumption, increasing physical activity and encouraging self-esteem in children. - The school community determined the exact content of the program strategies (tailored interventions and local consensus approach) - Community Development Workers acted as knowledge brokers, providing information and guiding schools’ customized development of intervention program strategies and their efforts to resource them (educational outreach visits and educational materials).
Comparator description	Usual practice
Implementation outcomes	Outcome: Proportion of schools with written physical activity, healthy eating and canteen policies
	Measure: School principals were asked to report on whether their school had policies relating to physical activity and canteen
	Results: Proportion of schools with physical activity policy: Control: baseline 7 (70%), follow-up 6 (60%); Intervention: baseline 8 (66.6%), follow-up 11 (91.7%)Proportion of schools with healthy eating policy: Control: follow-up 2 (20%); Intervention: follow-up 9 (75%)Proportion of schools with canteen policy: Control: baseline 4 (40%), follow-up 6 (60%); Intervention: baseline 2 (16.7%), follow-up 3 (25%)