Table 5

Second stage filter analysis

Level of evidence

Equity

Acceptability

Feasibility

Sustainability

Side-effects


May be effective:

No Level I or II evidence

Modelling based on Level IV evidence

Further effectiveness data sought but does not appear to support intervention's effectiveness.

Moderate equity concerns:

Less access for children in rural and remote areas

Less acceptable to older children in primary schools

Requires a big time commitment from the school community, which may not be acceptable to all schools

Likely issues:

Variations in service delivery model between states make national implementation complex and question of appropriate auspicing body difficult.

Substantial fixed costs for set-up and ongoing maintenance

Likely issues:

Program requires ongoing funding & support, which may impact on sustainability.

Positive:

Less traffic, pollution, safer around schools.

Facilitates social networks.

Increases awareness of local neighbourhoods

Enhances pedestrian skills.

May be positive impacts on family travel behaviour

Negative:

Potential to decrease the number of parents walking


    Decision points

: Weak evidence of effectiveness

Moderate issue

Not a major issue

Some significant concerns

Issue which needs to be addressed

Significant wider positive benefits


    Policy considerations:

The WSB intervention is not cost-effective in terms of its effect on obesity in children under current uptake results. Action to improve uptake is worthy of consideration. Further, the intervention was not designed as an obesity prevention initiative, but as a program to produce change in the travel behaviour of students and to promote a safer traffic environment around schools. Lack of data on the incremental change in the numbers taking up active transport as a consequence of the intervention is a key limitation.


Source: ACE-Obesity project

Moodie et al. International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity 2009 6:63   doi:10.1186/1479-5868-6-63

Open Data