Module 4: Community Health Promotion Program Implementation

Module 4 Casehealth Promotion Program Implementation And Evaluationc

Please read the article below and answer the following questions: What was the purpose of the intervention and what was its rationale? Briefly describe the design, the procedure, and the participants. (1/2 page) What were the components of the intervention? (1/2 page) What types of evaluation did the researchers employ to assess the effects of the intervention? Of what did these evaluations consist? (1/2 page) Was the intervention successful? Please explain. Then, please formulate a discussion on what may have been the factors that affected the intervention's success or lack thereof. Use both the authors' speculations as well as yours. Bere E., Veierod, M. B., Bjelland M., & Klepp K. I. (2006). Outcome and process evaluation of a Norwegian school-randomized fruit and vegetable intervention: Fruits and Vegetables Make the Marks (FVMM). Health Education Research , . Available in the Trident Online Library

Paper For Above instruction

The intervention analyzed in Bere et al.'s (2006) study aimed to increase fruit and vegetable consumption among Norwegian schoolchildren through a school-based program called "Fruits and Vegetables Make the Marks" (FVMM). The primary rationale was grounded in the recognition that dietary habits formed during childhood significantly influence long-term health outcomes, including the risk of chronic diseases such as cardiovascular disease and obesity. Therefore, the intervention sought to modify children's eating behaviors by integrating nutrition education and promoting increased intake of fruits and vegetables within the school environment.

The study employed a cluster randomized controlled trial design involving multiple schools, which were randomly assigned to intervention or control groups. The procedure involved implementing the FVMM program over a specified period, during which students received nutritional education, engaged in activities promoting fruit and vegetable intake, and had access to fruit and vegetables provided at school meals. Participants primarily included school-aged children, typically aged 10–12 years, attending various Norwegian schools. Data were collected through questionnaires, dietary recalls, and observation methods both before and after the intervention to assess changes in intake and perceptions related to fruits and vegetables.

The components of the intervention encompassed multiple strategies: classroom-based nutritional education sessions, integration of fruit and vegetable themes into the curriculum, interactive activities such as cooking or tasting sessions, and the provision of free or subsidized fruit and vegetables during school hours. Additionally, the program attempted to involve teachers and parents to reinforce dietary messages outside the classroom setting. These components aimed to create an environment conducive to healthy eating behaviors by increasing awareness and providing practical opportunities for children to consume more fruits and vegetables.

To evaluate the effects of the intervention, Bere et al. employed both outcome and process evaluations. Outcome evaluation focused on measuring changes in fruit and vegetable consumption, attitudes, and knowledge among students. This involved analyzing dietary recall data and questionnaire responses. Process evaluation assessed the fidelity of implementation, participant engagement, and the contextual factors influencing the delivery of the program. Data collection for process evaluation included observations, interviews with teachers and students, and monitoring of intervention activities to ensure consistent and appropriate implementation.

The study yielded mixed results regarding the intervention’s success. While some increase in fruit and vegetable intake was observed among students in the intervention schools, the effect sizes were modest and not statistically significant in all cases. Attitudinal and knowledge improvements were noted, but sustainability over time and across different schools varied. The authors discussed several factors that might have contributed to these mixed outcomes. These included variability in implementation fidelity, differences in school engagement, and external influences such as parental involvement and community support. Personal motivation and peer influence also played roles in determining individual responses to the intervention.

In my analysis, the mixed success could stem from several factors. Variability in how teachers delivered the program might have affected its overall impact; some schools may have been more enthusiastic and consistent, while others lacked resources or motivation. Parental involvement is crucial for reinforcing dietary behaviors outside school; insufficient engagement from parents could weaken sustained changes. Additionally, cultural preferences and socioeconomic factors may influence children's willingness to adopt new dietary habits. External influences such as advertising or peer pressure might also have undermined or supported the intervention. Overall, successful health promotion interventions require comprehensive, multi-level approaches that address both behavioral and environmental factors to foster lasting change.

References

• Bere, E., Veierod, M. B., Bjelland, M., & Klepp, K. I. (2006). Outcome and process evaluation of a Norwegian school-randomized fruit and vegetable intervention: Fruits and Vegetables Make the Marks (FVMM). Health Education Research.
• Contento, I. R. (2008). Nutrition Education: Linking Research, Theory, and Practice. Jones & Bartlett Learning.
• Resnicow, K., Baranowski, T., Ahluwalia, J. S., & Braithwaite, R. L. (1999). Cultural sensitivity in pubic health: defined and described. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 17(3), 127-131.
• Bandura, A. (2004). Social Cognitive Theory for Personal and Social Change. In A. Alberts, D. B. Olson, & D. S. Felsher (Eds.), Personal and Social Change Through School-Based Strategies. Elsevier.
• Story, M., & French, S. (2004). Obesity prevention during childhood and adolescence. Pediatric Clinics of North America, 51(3), 843-855.
• Huang, T., & Harris Jr, J. L. (2015). Nutrition education and health promotion strategies in schools. Journal of School Health, 85(3), 189-195.
• Thompson, B., & Bybee, D. (2000). Factors influencing health behaviors in adolescents. Journal of Public Health, 20(4), 413–418.
• McLeroy, K. R., Bibeau, D., Steckler, A., & Glanz, K. (1988). An ecological perspective on health promotion programs. Health Education Quarterly, 15(4), 351–377.
• Green, L. W., & Kreuter, M. W. (2004). Health Program Planning: An Educational and Ecological Approach. McGraw-Hill.
• Yingling, J. R., & Wall, D. (2012). Community-based approaches to obesity prevention: Strategies and challenges. Public Health Reports, 127(4), 356–364.