Table 4 Intervention implementation considerations
Implementation consideration | Overall rating | |
|---|---|---|
Equity | The intervention is delivered in primary schools, and therefore is more likely to be equitable assuming funding is available to resource the program. | Positive |
Medium certainty of BMI effect, objectively measured in one high quality RCT. | Medium | |
Strength of evidence | Medium certainty of SB effect, device measured in one high quality RCT. | Medium |
Acceptability | Government: Federal and State Governments are generally supportive of programs designed to improve the health of school students. The intervention may help to fulfill the criteria for several Australian Curriculum guidelines focused on health and physical education. | High |
Industry: The intervention could provide valuable resources for teachers and schools to meet the relevant guidelines. Anecdotally, teachers and schools were generally receptive to the intervention, but listed time constraints and competing demands on their time as potential barriers to program delivery. | High | |
Public: The general public is likely to be supportive of programs that improve the health of school children. Anecdotally, the intervention was positively received by parents and children. | High | |
Feasibility | Interventions delivered in the school environment are feasible. | High |
Sustainability | Interventions delivered in the school environment are sustainable with ongoing support and appropriate funding. | Medium |
Other considerations | The intervention may have a positive effect on the families of children who participate, however no evidence of this effect is currently available. | |