Table 5.
Applicability reporting of observational school audit tool studies.
ID | Does tool relate to a policy, program or ongoing intervention study? | Are tool limitations described? | Are future/potential uses of the tool described? | Are results or analyses reported to schools or districts? | Do authors provide a “call to action” for schools based on findings? | Total Items Reported | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1 | ACTION! Staff Audit | Formative research for ACTION! (group randomized staff wellness study) | 1 | ||||
2 | Adachi et al, 2013 | Some information cannot be described, including: calorie content, comparing water to flavored water, replacement frequency, or sold out status | Be aware that vending machines are still prevalent, and a potent source of both energy-dense, low-nutrient calories as well as advertising to students | 2 | |||
3 | Belansky et al, 2013 | School Environment Project (pair randomized study to test two strategies for wellness environment and policy changes through a university-school partnership in Colorado) | May lack generalizability (only used in rural schools) | Appoint staff champions to coordinate/monitor changes; involve administrator in school-university-partnership, support changes that will improve student behavior | 3 | ||
4 | Branding Checklist | Small sample size | Provides six strategies for schools/districts to develop school nutrition brand personality; school professionals should be trained to implement strategies | 2 | |||
5 | Co-SEA | COMPASS (longitudinal, quasi-experimental study of how changes in programs, policies, and built environments relate to child behaviors and health in Canada) | Measurement error may have occurred when assessing condition of facilities | Photo-taking aspect can inform future methods; Could harmonize data collection across school based studies for generalizability | All schools receive School Health Profiles, which include school-specific data, evidence-based recommendations, and contact information to take action | 4 | |
5.1 | Co-SEA (Unadapted) | Should have been adapted with unique consideration of Guatemalan school culture | Can use in other countries; recommend adaptation and translation due to school differences across countries | All schools receive School Health Profiles, which include school-specific data, evidence-based recommendations, and contact information to take action | Increase availability of free drinking water, and decrease access, restrict marketing, and enforce sale legislation on sale of sugar-sweetened beverages | 4 | |
6 | EAPRS | School Grounds as Community Parks study (quasi-experimental study of schoolyard renovations in Cleveland, Ohio) | Some confusion with scale items; subjective items had poor reliability; dynamic items not captured; lack variability; may lack generalizability | Could be adapted for parks or playgrounds in other regions to create more user-friendly PA spaces at school; establish predictors of park use | 3 | ||
7 | ENDORSE | ENDORSE (Environmental Determinants of Obesity in Rotterdam Schoolchildren, prospective 2-year study in adolescents) | Crude constructs of availability; cross-section; possible non-sensitive categorization; no gold standard to test validity | 2 | |||
8 | Food Decision Environment Tool | As a result of tailoring, it may lack generalizability to other settings where choice points may be different | Useful approach to identify targets for research and intervention planning that is aimed toward improving quality of children’s food choices | 2 | |||
9 | GRF-OT | Aligned with Playworks (nonprofit organization aiming to help schools create recess and play environments for all children) | Framework represents an adult view of recess quality and does not get child perspective; reliability data limited to one large urban public school district. | Could be used to evaluate CDC and SHAPE America recess initiatives nationwide, to ensure consistency and inclusivity of key context variables | 3 | ||
10 | Hecht et al, 2017 | 0 | |||||
11 | ISAT | International Study of Childhood Obesity, Lifestyle, Environment (ISCOLE) (cross-sectional, lifestyle correlates of childhood obesity in 12 countries) | Possible “ceiling effect” with amount of equipment; tool does not record aesthetic qualities; inter-rater only reliability measure | Use of single tool across many countries can facilitate global work to promote healthy school environments | Shift focus from increasing facilities and sports to addressing other drivers of PA (e.g., PE and fitness programs, active breaks and curriculum, etc) | 4 | |
12 | Laurie et al, 2017 | South African National School Nutrition Program’s Sustainable Food Production in Schools (SFPS) pillar | Seek outside support to sustain gardens, and links should be created to improve consistency and training, increase garden size, production, equipment, management | 2 | |||
13 | LCFO | Healthy Communities Study (longitudinal study of associations between community programs and policies and child/adolescent behaviors and health across USA) | Single day of observation may not fully reflect whether school meets USDA meal standards | 2 | |||
14 | PARA (Adapted) | Healthy Communities Study (longitudinal study of associations between community programs and policies and child/adolescent behaviors and health across USA) | 1 | ||||
14.1 | PARA (unadapted) | Mixed methods cross-sectional study to identify environmental influences on children’s physical activity and diet in rural communities/schools | Small sample size, only in rural schools | Also used for other neighborhood physical activity resources (e.g., parks, trails, etc) | Consider low-cost ways to make environment health-promoting (e.g., walking school bus, exercise breaks); provide age-appropriate and fun games at recess | 4 | |
15 | Patel et al, 2009 | Community-academic partnership’s evaluation of Los Angeles School District’s 2005 Cafeteria Improvement Motion (aims to increase NSLP participation, improve school meal marketing) | Qualitative analysis limits quantification of results; small sample size | Other community-academic teams, including school policy stakeholders, should conduct similar site visits to assess policies are implemented as intended | Enabled community-academic partnership to determine priorities for program to help LAUSD translate Cafeteria Improvement Motion into practice | School-specific actions taken as a result of the findings include: creating larger signs to display menu, ordering pre-sliced fruit, offering free, chilled water | 5 |
16 | School Food Environment Scan | Let’s Move Salad Bars to Schools Initiative | May lack generalizability (only used in schools with high concentration of African American students) | Consider promotion and placement to increase salad bar use; Address individual factors that may lead to use | 3 | ||
17 | School Lunchroom Audits | National School Lunch Program requirements and Smarter Lunchroom strategies | Single point-in-time audit | To better implement Smarter Lunchrooms, schools need to improve provider engagement and buy-in | 3 | ||
18 | SF-EAT | Think&EatGreen @School Alliance (community-university research alliance), provincial guidelines for food and beverage sales in British Columbia, Canada | May lack generalizability (only Vancouver public schools); scoring process not designed to track small differences; cross-sectional | Schools could use as a needs assessment to understand engagement in each domain and/or determine future actions; Could modify for other local or national contexts or priorities using similar development process | School stakeholders should communicate frequently about a clear definition of sustainable food, and develop policies that incentivize and train food service workers to promote sustainable food use | 4 | |
19 | SNDA-III | 2004 Child Nutrition and WIC Reauthorization Act (federal act require schools to have local wellness policies) | Did not investigate the hours when vending machines were accessible to students | Districts should include specific policy language to prohibit certain foods/beverages in all school areas, and work with food and nutrition professionals | 3 | ||
20 | SNEO | Louisiana Health (randomized controlled trial to test efficacy of two multi-component, school-based childhood obesity prevention interventions) | Small sample size | Methods can be useful in developing future process evaluation measures, and expanding to include dose and reach | 3 | ||
21 | SPACE Checklist | Active Living (study encouraging PA in primary school children in Southern Limburg, Netherlands) | Limited variation was found for schoolyard characteristics | Ensure presence of fixed equipment and opportunities to use that equipment, consider amount/type of green space to incorporate, expand open hours | 3 | ||
22 | SPAN-ET | Federal policies, best practices, and SNAP-Ed priorities | May lack generalizability (small rural sample); not able to correlate findings with actual child behavior | Could repeat beyond Oregon to assess ability to detect change between schools; could pair with annual behavioral surveillance data to help schools meet national agendas | Tailored results were presented to school stakeholders by extension educators in various formats, including best practice resources specific to “poor” categories | Tailored calls-to-action (and accompanying resources) were provided for each school depending on their scores | 5 |
23 | SPEEDY | SPEEDY (Sport, Physical Activity and Eating Behavior: Environment Determinants in Young People, cohort study to understand patterns of influence on diet/PA among children) | Not sensitive to between-school variability; some subjectivity; hard to differentiate sports; no loose equipment captured; Kappa not good for binary items | 3 | |||
23.1 | SPEEDY (Adapted; Dias et al, 2017)s | Only addresses one factor related to environment (structures), only cross-sectional | Schools should have spaces with good structural conditions to favor planned activities, which can increase student PA | 2 | |||
23.2 | SPEEDY (Adapted; Harrison et al, 2016) | SPEEDY study (4-year follow-up) | No reliability or validity for middle school, (items may be less relevant and others may be missed); no loose equipment or access policies captured | 2 | |||
23.3 | SPEEDY (Adapted; Tarun et al, 2017) | May lack generalizability (only private schools); no focus on indoor areas; reliability/validity not re-tested for Indian schools | Need multi-pronged policy approach to promot PA, including schools supporting curricula with PA time, investing in and maintaining grounds equipment and space | 2 | |||
23.4 | SPEEDY (Unadapted; Chalkley et al, 2018) | Marathon Kids UK (primary school-based running program delivered by Kids Run Free and Nike) | Protocol indicates that findings will be shared with schools and other stakeholders at a joint dissemination event | 3 | |||
23.5 | SPEEDY (Unadapted; Hyndman and Chancellor, 2017) | No loose equipment captured; school leaders knew of the visit so may have prepared outdoor areas | Schools should address differences between primary and secondary, provide opportunities for social and non-competitive active play, update garden features, facilities, surface type | 2 |