with both the curriculum materials and teaching the curriculum) significantly
correlated with student satisfaction in Gray et al.’s study (9). In their evaluation
model, Gray et al. hypothesised that teacher appreciation links to delivered dose and children’s engagement and appreciation, but not directly to
programme outcomes (9). Teacher appreciation might therefore not be the right
(direct) indicator for effectiveness of the programme. This hypothesis might
be supported by Dusenbury et al.’s finding (14) that teacher self-reports about
adaptations to the programme negatively correlated to observations.
Children’s appreciation in our study was positively associated with change in psychosocial determinants. Especially strong associations were found with attitude and emotion, which are determinants that are closely linked to perceptions of liking. Other studies that have looked at the relation between children’s appreciation and programme effect found either significant positive
associations using categorical appreciation scores (4, 5, 9) or no significant
associations using a continuous appreciation score (8). Positive children’s
appreciation seems therefore to be more indicative of programme effects than teacher appreciation.
In the current study, significant associations were found between interpersonal communication about Taste Lessons and the change in most of the selected psychosocial determinants, especially after one month. To our knowledge, talking about a programme has been extensively studied only in mass media
campaigns (16-18). In particular, emotionally engaging messages or activities
are promising means to increase the likelihood of conversation, but the topic and the person that is talked with are important factors for obtaining effect
(17). Intervention effects of Taste Lessons via interpersonal communication
may be enhanced if attractive activities, such as experiments, are used, and if teachers are able to get the children fascinated by the topic. This overlaps with enthusiasm of the teacher and engagement of the children as potential factors
for influencing implementation (9, 13, 14). The results in the current study were
obtained from a single question on conversational occurrence. Conversation content and which persons were talked with were not assessed. Further research is therefore necessary to unravel the relation between interpersonal communication and programme outcomes.
3
c
onclusionsFrom the results it can be concluded that delivered dose, children’s appreciation and interpersonal communication are indicators of a positive programme effect on psychosocial determinants towards tasting unfamiliar foods and eating healthily and a variety of foods. Therefore, process evaluation provides insight into factors that contribute to the effect of interventions in real-life settings.
A
cknowledgmentsWe would like to thank the Taste Lessons national coordination team for providing information on the programme and assisting with the recruitment of schools for the study, and the children and teachers in this study for their participation. This work was financially supported by the Ministry of Economic Affairs of The Netherlands.
3
r
eferences1. Knai C, Pomerleau J, Lock K, McKee M. Getting children to eat more fruit and vegetables: A systematic review. Preventive Medicine. 2006;42(2):85-95.
2. Pérez-Rodrigo C, Aranceta J. School-based nutrition education: lessons learned and new perspectives. Public Health Nutrition. 2001;4(1A):131-9.
3. Van Cauwenberghe E, Maes L, Spittaels H, van Lenthe FJ, Brug J, Oppert JM, et al. Effectiveness of school-based interventions in Europe to promote healthy nutrition in children and adolescents: systematic review of published and ‘grey’ literature. The British journal of nutrition. 2010;103(6):781-97.
4. Wind M, Bjelland M, Pérez-Rodrigo C, te Velde SJ, Hildonen C, Bere E, et al. Appreciation and implementation of a school-based intervention are associated with changes in fruit and vegetable intake in 10- to 13-year old schoolchildren—the Pro Children study. Health Education Research. 2008;23(6):997-1007.
5. Bere E, Veierød MB, Bjelland M, Klepp K-I. Outcome and process evaluation of a Norwegian school-randomized fruit and vegetable intervention: Fruits and Vegetables Make the Marks (FVMM). Health Education Research. 2006;21(2):258-67.
6. Resnicow K, Davis M, Smith M, Lazarus-Yaroch A, Baranowski T, Baranowski J, et al. How best to measure implementation of school health curricula: a comparison of three measures. Health Education Research. 1998;13(2):239-50.
7. Story M, Mays RW, Bishop DB, Perry CL, Taylor G, Smyth M, et al. 5-a-Day Power Plus: Process Evaluation of a Multicomponent Elementary School Program to Increase Fruit and Vegetable Consumption. Health Education & Behavior. 2000;27(2):187-200. 8. Christian M, Evans C, Ransley JK, Greenwood DC, Thomas J, Cade J. Process evaluation
of a cluster randomised controlled trial of a school-based fruit and vegetable intervention: Project Tomato. Public Health Nutrition. 2012;15(3):459-65.
9. Gray HL, Contento IR, Koch PA. Linking implementation process to intervention outcomes in a middle school obesity prevention curriculum, ‘Choice, Control and Change’. Health Education Research. 2015;30(2):248-61.
10. Contento IR, Manning AD, Shannon B. Research perspective on school-based nutrition education. Journal of Nutrition Education. 1992;24(5):247-60.
11. Steckler A, Linnan L. Process evaluation for public health interventions and research San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass; 2002.
12. van Nassau F, Singh AS, van Mechelen W, Brug J, Chinapaw MJM. Implementation evaluation of school-based obesity prevention programmes in youth; how, what and why? Public Health Nutrition. 2015;18(09):1531-4.
13. Durlak J, DuPre E. Implementation Matters: A Review of Research on the Influence of Implementation on Program Outcomes and the Factors Affecting Implementation. American Journal of Community Psychology. 2008;41(3):327-50.
14. Dusenbury L, Brannigan R, Hansen WB, Walsh J, Falco M. Quality of implementation: developing measures crucial to understanding the diffusion of preventive interventions. Health Education Research. 2005;20(3):308-13.
15. Saunders RP, Evans MH, Joshi P. Developing a Process-Evaluation Plan for Assessing Health Promotion Program Implementation: A How-To Guide. Health Promot Pract. 2005;6(2):134-47.
16. van den Putte B, Yzer M, Southwell BG, de Bruin G-J, WIllemsen MC. Interpersonal Communication as an Indirect Pathway for the Effect of Antismoking Media Content on Smoking Cessation. J Health Commun. 2011;16:470 - 85.
17. Dunlop SM, Kashima Y, Wakefield M. Predictors and Consequences of Conversations About Health Promoting Media Messages. Communication Monographs. 2010;77(4):518- 39.
18. Hendriks H, van den Putte B, de Bruijn G-J, de Vreese CH. Predicting Health: The Interplay Between Interpersonal Communication and Health Campaigns. J Health Commun. 2014;19(5):625-36.
19. van den Putte B, Yzer M, Southwell BG, de Bruijn G-J, Willemsen MC. Interpersonal Communication as an Indirect Pathway for the Effect of Antismoking Media Content on Smoking Cessation. J Health Commun. 2011;16(5):470-85.
20. Battjes-Fries M, Haveman-Nies A, Renes R, Meester H, van ’t Veer P. Effect of the Dutch school-based education programme ‘Taste Lessons’ on behavioural determinants of taste acceptance and healthy eating: a quasi-experimental study. Public Health Nutrition. 2015; 18(12):2231-41.
3
21. Smaaklessen Wageningen: Steunpunt Smaaklessen & Schoolgruiten 2012 [cited 2012 December]. Available from: www.smaaklessen.nl.
22. Bessems KMHH, van Assema P, Martens MK, Paulussen TWGM, Raaijmakers LGM, De Vries NK. Appreciation and implementation of the Krachtvoer healthy diet promotion programme for 12- to 14- year-old students of prevocational schools. BMC Public Health. 2011a;11(909).
23. Ajzen I, Fishbein M. Understanding attitudes and predicting social behavior: Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall; 1980.
24. Parmenter K, Wardle J. Evaluation and Design of Nutrition Knowledge Measures. Journal of Nutrition Education. 2000;32(5):269-77.
25. Van Breukelen GJP. ANCOVA versus change from baseline had more power in randomized studies and more bias in nonrandomized studies. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology. 2006;59(9):920-5.
26. Onderwijsdata - primair onderwijs: Dienst Uitvoering Onderwijs - Ministerie van Onderwijs, Cultuur en Wetenschap; [cited 2012 December]. Available from: www.duo. nl.
27. Reynolds KD, Franklin FA, Binkley D, Raczynski JM, Harrington KF, Kirk KA, et al. Increasing the Fruit and Vegetable Consumption of Fourth-Graders: Results from the High 5 Project. Preventive Medicine. 2000;30(4):309-19.
28. Baranowski T, Davis M, Resnicow K, Baranowski J, Doyle C, Lin LS, et al. Gimme 5 Fruit, Juice, and Vegetables for Fun and Health: Outcome Evaluation. Health Education & Behavior. 2000;27(1):96-111.
29. Baranowski T, Stables G. Process Evaluations of the 5-a-Day Projects. Health Education & Behavior. 2000;27(2):157-66.
30. Perry CL, Sellers DE, Johnson C, Pedersen S, Bachman KJ, Parcel GS, et al. The Child and Adolescent Trial for Cardiovascular Health (CATCH): Intervention, Implementation, and Feasibility for Elementary Schools in the United States. Health Education and Behavior. 1997;24(6):716-35.
31. Day ME, Strange KS, McKay HA, Naylor PJ. Action schools! BC - Healthy eating: Effects of a whole-school model to modifying eating behaviours of elementary school children. Canadian Journal of Public Health. 2008;99(4):328-31.
32. Steckler A, Ethelbah B, Martin CJ, Stewart D, Pardilla M, Gittelsohn J, et al. Pathways process evaluation results: a school-based prevention trial to promote healthful diet and physical activity in American Indian third, fourth, and fifth grade students. Preventive Medicine. 2003;37, Supplement 1(0):S80-S90.
33. Gortmaker S, Cheung LY, Peterson KE, et al. Impact of a school-based interdisciplinary intervention on diet and physical activity among urban primary school children: Eat well and keep moving. Archives of Pediatrics & Adolescent Medicine. 1999;153(9):975-83.