The receptiveness of school environments to a community-based physical activity intervention...

The receptiveness of school environments to a community-

based physical activity intervention programme

Baseline data from a pilot study with

primary schools in Limpopo and

GautengPresenters: Dr. Cathi Draper & Ms. Anna Grimsrud

Research Team

University of Cape Town – Exercise Science and Sports

MedicineProf. Vicki Lambert

Dr. Cathi DraperMs. Anna Grimsrud

University of the WitwatersrandProf. Michael RudolphDr. Simon NemutandaniMs. Lauren de Kock

Introduction

• Community Health Intervention Programmes (CHIP’s) Western Cape

• ‘Discovery Healthy Lifestyles Programmes’

• Factors promoting and/or hindering the receptiveness of schools’ physical and social environments

Intervention and control sites

Limpopo Gauteng

Intervention

Control Intervention

Control

Xivodze Junior PrimaryMafarana Senior Primary

Motupa Kgomo Primary

MC Weiler PrimaryCarter Primary Skeen Primary

Zenzelani PrimaryBovet Primary

Schools

Methods

• Situational analysis of the school physical activity environment

• Questionnaire on Community Environment (IPEN)

• Focus groups & semi-structured interviews

Quantitative findings –

Situational Analyses

Space Equipment Time Nutrition

Limpopo Undeveloped Minimal ConstrainedFeeding scheme

Not ideal

GautengSome

developed

Safety issues

Generally abundant

ConstrainedFeeding scheme

Not ideal

Qualitative findings – IPEN

• Community differences– Existing links with community projects

• Living conditions – rural vs peri-urban• Access to basic amenities, e.g.

electricity, running water & sanitation• Availability of resources, e.g. equipment

Community

differences

Qualitative findings – IPEN

• Community differences– Existing links with community projects

• Living conditions – rural vs peri-urban

• Access to basic amenities, e.g. electricity, running water & sanitation

• Availability of resources, e.g. equipment

Rural

Peri-Urban

Qualitative findings – IPEN

• Community differences– Existing links with community projects

• Living conditions – rural vs peri-urban• Access to basic amenities, e.g.

electricity, running water & sanitation

• Availability of resources, e.g. equipment

Basic amenities

Space: developed vs undeveloped

Qualitative findings – Focus Groups &

interviews• Importance of ongoing & sustainable

training and management• Transfer and internalisation of

knowledge• Impact of knowledge on attitudes,

beliefs & behaviour• Increased self-efficacy of leaders• Leaders as role models for members• Role of training staff

Factors promoting and hindering receptiveness

• Common to other SA school environments

• Unique to DHLP’s

Unique factors

• Intersectoral collaboration– Surveillance & evaluation

• Community participation

• Quality of teacher training• Buy-in of teachers• Support for teachers as

leaders• Not a high demand for

equipment, but space is required

Collaborators

Fieldworkers

Educators

Leaders

Clinics

Unique factors

• Intersectoral collaboration– Surveillance & evaluation

• Community participation• Quality of teacher

training• Buy-in of teachers• Support for teachers

as leaders• Not a high demand for

equipment, but space is required

Sustainability

Development & enhancement of skills

Maximises existing community strengths and

resources

Programme ownership by school and community

Nutrition

• Secondary focus of CHIPS intervention

• Feeding schemes: policy vs. practice

• Importance and feasibility

Future research avenues

• Baseline assessment - quantitative & qualitative

• Comparison to national physiological data• Changes attributed to intervention

• Other areas for intervention (e.g. nutrition)• Provide evidence to support expansion

• Factors responsible for intervention fidelity/success

Thank you