. 2022 Aug 29;2022(8):CD011677. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD011677.pub3

3. Summary of intervention, measures and absolute intervention effect size in included studies.

Author, date Design	Targeted risk factors	Implementation strategy (according to the EPOC taxonomy)	Comparison	Measures, length of follow‐up, measurement type	Author reported effect size	Standardised effect size: SMD
Randomised and cluster randomised trials
Cunningham‐Sabo 2003 cRCT^a	Nutrition	Clinical practice guidelines, educational materials, educational meetings, educational outreach visits or academic detailing	Usual practice	% calories total fat breakfast (less is better), 2 years, 5‐day menu and recipe data collection.	FU LS mean −3.3 (SE 1.50); P = 0.03	0.66 (95% CI 0.02 to 1.30)
de Villiers 2015 cRCT^a	Nutrition	Local opinion leaders, educational materials, educational outreach visits, educational meetings	Minimal support control	% schools with nutrition related policy (more is better), 3 years, situational analysis (included a structured interview with the school principal and completion of an observation schedule).	No effect estimate between groups reported. FU n/N: intervention 7/8; control 7/8	0 (95% CI −1.64 to 1.64)
French 2004 cRCT	Nutrition	Local consensus processes, tailored intervention, educational meetings, pay for performance	Usual practice or waitlist control	% low fat à la carte foods (more is better), 2 years, observation of lunchtime meals offered.	No effect estimate between groups reported. FU mean: intervention 42.0 (range 28–58); control 27.7 (16–39)	0.85 (95% CI −0.07 to 1.76)
Hager 2018 cRCT	Nutrition, PA	Tailored interventions, educational meetings, external funding, educational materials, local opinion leaders	Usual practice or waitlist control	Implementation score (more is better), 1 year, online survey.	FU mean: 0.70; P = 0.501^b	0.16 (95% CI −0.44 to 0.76)
Lytle 2006 cRCT^a	Nutrition	Educational materials, educational meetings, local opinion leaders, local consensus processes	Usual practice or waitlist control	% of items in the foods to promote category (more is better), 3 years, 5‐day service observations.	P = 0.04 (1‐tailed test), no other data reported	NA
Mobley 2012 cRCT^a	Nutrition	Educational games, educational meetings, external funding, tailored intervention, educational materials, educational outreach or academic detailing, other, the use of information and communication technology	Usual practice or waitlist control	% eliminate milk > 1% fat, all other added sugar beverages and 100% juice only served in < 150 g (more is better), about 3.5 years, data collection on all food/beverage product labels.	No effect estimate between groups reported. FU %: intervention 94%; control 6%	2.17 (95% CI 0.64 to 3.70)
Nathan 2016 cRCT^a	Nutrition	Audit and feedback, continuous quality improvement, education materials, education meeting, local consensus process, local opinion leader, tailored intervention, other	Usual practice	Healthy canteen items represent > 50% of products listed on the menu (more is better), 1 year, canteen menu audits.	FU RR (95% CI): 2.03 (95% CI 1.01 to 4.08); P = 0.03	0.70 (95% CI 0.05 to 1.34)
Perry 1997 cRCT	Nutrition, PA	Educational materials, educational meetings, educational outreach visits or academic detailing, other	Usual practice or waitlist control	Cholesterol in lunches provided (mean milligrams) (less is better), 3 years, menu analysis.	FU mean (SD): intervention 74.9 (SD 18.8); control 83.2 (SD 22.6), P = significant difference	0.40 (95% CI −0.01 to 0.81)
Perry 2004 cRCT	Nutrition	Educational meetings, educational outreach visits or academic detailing, educational materials, local consensus processes, other	Usual practice or waitlist control	Number of fruits and vegetables available at cafeteria (more is better), 2 years, canteen observations.	FU MD 0.48 (SE 0.11); P < 0.01	0.40 (95% CI 0.18 to 0.62)
Saraf 2015 cRCT	Nutrition, PA and tobacco	Educational games, educational materials, educational meetings, local consensus processes, local opinion leaders, tailored Interventions, other	Usual practice	Schools having a healthy food policy (more is better), 1 year, survey data.	FU n/N: intervention 16/19; control 3/21; P < 0.01	1.91 (95% CI 0.95 to 2.87)
Story 2000 cRCT	Nutrition	Educational meetings, other	Usual practice	Mean number of fruit and vegetable choices available at cafeteria (more is better), 1 year, observation of food service staff.	No effect estimate between groups reported. Data for 4th and 5th year combined by review authors FU mean: intervention 4.05 (SD 0.66), control 2.9 (SD 0.68)	1.60 (95% CI 0.59 to 2.60)
Taylor 2018 cRCT^a	Nutrition	Incentives, educational materials, educational outreach visits or academic detailing	Usual practice or waitlist control	Number of fruit items offered daily at cafeteria (more is better), 9 months, based on produce expenditure.	FU mean: intervention 4.17 (SD 0.98); control 4.17 (SD 0.75); P = 1.00	0 (95% CI −1.13 to 1.13)
Waters 2017 cRCT	Nutrition, PA	Educational materials, educational outreach visits or academic detailing; local consensus approach, tailored interventions	Usual practice	Existence of Healthy Eating Policy (more is better), 3.5 years, principal survey.	No effect estimate between groups reported. FU n (%): intervention 9 (75%); control 2 (20%)	1.52 (95% CI 0.31 to 2.73)
Wolfenden 2017 cRCT^a	Nutrition	Audit and feedback, continuous quality improvement, external funding, education materials, education meeting, education outreach visits or academic detailing, local consensus process, local opinion leader, tailored intervention	Usual practice	Healthy items represented > 50% of canteen menu (more is better), 12–14 months, menu assessment.	FU RR 3.06 (95% CI 1.64 to 5.68); P < 0.01	1.37 (95% CI 0.68, 2.07)
Yoong 2016 cRCT^a	Nutrition	Audit and feedback, continuous quality improvement, education materials, tailored intervention	Usual practice	Percentage of green (healthy) items on canteen menu (more is better), 12 months, menu audit.	FU estimate difference 10.55 (95% CI 2.06 to 19.05); P = 0.014	0.57 (95% CI 0.02 to 1.12)
Farmer 2017 cRCT	PA	Incentives, local consensus approach, tailored interventions	Usual practice	Play space evaluation score (total) (more is better), 1 year, principal survey.	FU MD 4.50 (95% CI 1.82 to 7.18); P = 0.005	1.20 (95% CI 0.13 to 2.26)
Nathan 2020 cRCT	PA	Educational outreach visits, centralised technical support, mandate change, identify and prepare champions, provide ongoing consultation, educational material	Usual practice	Teacher implementation (minutes) of a PA policy (structured physical activities) across the week (more is better), 9 months, teacher log book data.	FU MD 36.60 (95% CI 2.68 to 70.51); P = 0.04	0.65 (95% CI 0.21 to 1.10)
Naylor 2006 cRCT	PA	Educational materials, educational meetings, educational outreach meetings or academic detailing, local consensus process, other, tailored interventions	Usual practice or waitlist control	Minutes per week of planned PA (more is better), 11 months, teacher activity log.	No effect estimate between groups reported. FU mean: usual practice schools: 91.4 (95% CI 70.7 to 112.2); champion schools: 137.8 (95% CI 117.0 to 158.6); liaison schools: 154.8 (95% CI 136.6 to 173.0)	2.39 (95% CI 0.29 to 4.48)
Saunders 2006 cRCT^a	PA	Educational materials, educational meetings, educational outreach visits or academic detailing, local consensus processes, local opinion leaders, other	Usual practice or waitlist control	Implementation score (more is better), 12 months, survey.	Did not report aggregate results by group	NA
Sutherland 2017 cRCT	PA	Audit and feedback, education materials, education meeting, education outreach visits or academic detailing, local opinion leader, other	Usual practice or waitlist control	Overall lesson quality score (more is better), 6 months, observation checklist.	FU mean: intervention 57.5; control 36.0; P < 0.0^b	2.31 (95% CI 1.87 to 2.75)
Sutherland 2020 cRCT	PA	Audit and feedback, educational materials, educational meetings, educational outreach visits or academic detailing, clinical practice guidelines, interprofessional education, local opinion leaders, other	Usual practice	Mean number of PA practices implemented (more is better), 12 months, survey.	FU MD 3.2 (95% CI 2.5 to 3.9); P < 0.001	2.48 (95% CI 1.74 to 3.23)
Young 2008 cRCT	PA	Education materials, education meetings, educational outreach visits or academic detailing, interprofessional education, local consensus processes, local opinion leaders	Usual practice	Mean number of PA programmes implemented semesters 1–4 (more is better), 2 years, survey.	FU mean: intervention 15.2 (SD 10.8); control 10.1 (SD 4.0); P = 0.8	0.61 (95% CI −0.06 to 1.28)
Hodder 2017 cRCT	Tobacco, alcohol	Educational outreach visits, educational meetings, local consensus processes, educational materials, external funding, audit and feedback	Usual practice	Number of programmes components used by teachers (more is better), 3 years, survey.	FU mean: intervention 3.1 (SD 1.83); control 1.2 (SD 0.87); P = 0.004	1.19 (95% CI 0.38 to 2.01)
Mathur 2016 cRCT	Tobacco	Local opinion leader, continuous quality improvement, education materials, education meeting, local consensus process	Usual practice or waitlist control	School policy or rule specifically prohibiting smokeless tobacco use inside school (more is better), 12 months, policy observation checklist.	FU OR 7.54 (95% CI 4.92, 11.60); P value not reported	1.11 (95% CI 0.88 to 1.34)
McCormick 1995 cRCT	Tobacco	Educational meetings, local consensus processes, educational materials	Minimal support control	Number of curriculum activities taught by each teacher, 1 year, implementation checklist.	FU mean: intervention 68.11; control 67.99; P = not significant^b	NA
Non‐randomised controlled trials and cluster non‐randomised controlled trials
Alaimo 2015 Non‐randomised	Nutrition	Clinical practice guidelines, educational materials, educational outreach visits or academic detailing, external funding, local consensus processes, tailored interventions	Usual practice or waitlist control	Mean nutrition education and practice score (more is better), 2 years, survey.	FU mean: intervention 5.9 (SD 3.2); control 4.8 (SD 3.7); P = not significant	0.32 (95% CI −0.23 to 0.87)
Evenhuis 2020 Non‐randomised	Nutrition	Educational materials, educational meeting, audit with feedback, educational outreach visit or academic detailing	Waitlist control	Healthy products available in the cafeteria (more is better), 6 months, audit by canteen supervisor.	FU mean: intervention 77.20 (SD 13.41); control 60.10 (SD 15.67); P = not significant	1.12 (95% CI 0.18 to 2.07)
Heath 2002 Non‐randomised	Nutrition	Educational materials, educational meetings, educational outreach visits or academic detailing	Usual practice	% of fat in breakfast served (less is better), 12 months, menu and recipe audit.	FU %: intervention 20.0%; control 19.2%; P = not significant^b	NA
Nathan 2012 Non‐randomised	Nutrition	Educational materials, educational meetings, local consensus processes, local opinion leaders, other, monitoring the performance of the delivery of the healthcare, tailored interventions	Minimal support control	Prevalence of fruit and vegetable break (more is better), 11–15 months, principal report.	FU OR 1.91 (95% CI 1.47 to 2.48); P < 0.1	0.59 (95% CI 0.32 to 0.86)
Simons‐Morton 1988 Non‐randomised	Nutrition	Educational materials, educational outreach visits or academic detailing, local consensus processes, local opinion leaders, managerial supervision, monitoring of performance, other	Usual practice	Fat content in grams per 100 g school cafeteria lunches served (less is better), 1 year, chemical analysis.	No effect estimate between groups reported. FU mean: intervention school 1: −1.8; intervention school 2: −3.4; control school 1: −1.1; control school 2: 0.3	0.36 (95% CI 0.07 to 0.66)
Whatley Blum 2007 Non‐randomised	Nutrition	Clinical practice guidelines, educational materials, educational meetings, educational outreach visits or academic detailing, external funding, distribution of supplies, local consensus process, other	Usual practice or waitlist control	% meeting nutrient and proportion criteria – à la carte (more is better), 1 year, observations.	No effect estimate between groups reported. FU mean: intervention 69.2 (SD 3.7); control 23.3 (SD 7.6)	6.90 (95% CI 2.99 to 10.81)
Bremer 2018 Non‐randomised	PA	Educational meetings, educational materials	Usual practice	Quantity of PE classes score (more is better), 20 weeks, teacher survey.	FU MD: t(27) = −0.23; P = 0.82	NA
Cheung 2018 Non‐randomised	PA	Educational meeting, educational materials	Usual practice	Total PA time (before school, after school, in class, recess and PE time) (more is better), 1 year, teacher survey.	FU MD 36.3 (95% CI 16.2 to 56.4); P < 0.01	NA
Egan 2018 Non‐randomised	PA	Educational materials; Educational outreach visit or academic detailing, tailored intervention, audit and feedback	Waitlist control	Implementation score (more is better), 12 months, coded interviews with teachers.	FU MD: Mann‐Whitney U analyses 5; P = 0.04	0.78 (95% CI −0.88 to 2.44)
Sallis 1997 Non‐randomised	PA	Educational materials, educational meetings, educational outreach visits or academic detailing, length of consultation, other	Usual practice or waitlist control	Amount of PE per week (minutes) (more is better), 2.5 years, direct observation.	FU mean: intervention 64.6 (95% CI 59.0, 70.2); control 38.0 (27.9, 48.1); P < 0.001	1.10 (95% CI 0.55 to 1.64)
Gingiss 2006 Non‐randomised	Tobacco	Educational meetings, educational outreach visits, external funding, local consensus processes	Usual practice	% of schools extremely or moderately active in providing faculty or staff cessation support (more is better), 2 years, survey	No effect estimate between groups reported. FU %: intervention 37%; control 26%	0.30 (95% CI −0.32 to 0.91)

^aData analysed at the school level. ^bMeasure of variance not reported.

CI: confidence interval, cRCT: cluster randomised controlled trial; EPOC: Effective Practice and Organisation of Care; FU: follow‐up; LS: least squares; MD: mean difference; NA: not applicable (estimate of SMD unable to be determined, results are described narratively); n/N: number of events/sample size; OR: odds ratio, PA: physical activity; PE: physical education; RCT: randomised controlled trial; RR: risk ratio; SD: standard deviation; SE: standard error; SMD: standardised mean difference.