Home About us Contact
|
Home About us Contact | ||
|
|
||
School Health Programs (school + health_program)
Selected AbstractsAn Ecological Model of the Coordinated School Health Program: A CommentaryJOURNAL OF SCHOOL HEALTH, Issue 1 2010FASHA, Joyce V. Fetro PhD No abstract is available for this article. [source] Implementation of a Coordinated School Health Program in a Rural, Low-Income CommunityJOURNAL OF SCHOOL HEALTH, Issue 9 2007BSHRM, Lisa Cornwell RN ABSTRACT Background:, Coordinated school health programs (CSHPs) bring together educational and community resources in the school environment. This method is particularly important in rural areas like Kansas, where resources and trained health professionals are in short supply. Rural Stafford County, Kansas, struggles with health professional shortages and a low-income, high-need population. Methods:, In 2001, Stafford County's Unified School District 349 began a multiyear CSHP development process, which required adaptations for implementation in a rural area. First, a CSHP team was formed of community and administrative stakeholders as well as school system representatives. Next, the CSHP team assessed school district demographics so the program framework could be targeted to health needs. During a yearlong planning phase, the CSHP team determined 4 priority areas for program development, as limited staff and funds precluded developing programs in all 8 traditional CSHP areas. Program activities were tailored to the population demographics and available resources. Results:, Program outcomes were supported by School Health Index (SHI) data. Of the 8 CSHP focus areas, the SHI found high scores in 3 of the Stafford CSHP's priority areas: Health Services; Psychological, Counseling, and Social Services; and Physical Education. The fourth Stafford CSHP priority area, Nutrition Services, scored similarly to the less prioritized areas. Conclusions:, The process by which the Stafford school district modified and implemented CSHP methods can serve as a model for CSHPs in other rural, high-need areas. [source] Promoting Physical Activity in GirlsJOURNAL OF SCHOOL HEALTH, Issue 2 2005A Case Study of One School's Success ABSTRACT: This case study profiles one of 24 high schools that participated in a school-based, NIH-funded study to increase physical activity among high school girls. The case study school was one of 12 randomly assigned to the intervention group. The study intervention was based on the premise that a successful intervention is developed and tailored by teachers and staff to fit the context of their school. Intervention guidelines (Essential Elements) and the Coordinated School Health Program (CSHP) model were used to direct intervention activities for physical education, health education, school environment, school health services, faculty/staff health promotion, and family/community involvement. All girls at the case study school received the intervention. A team of school employees provided leadership to develop and implement the intervention in collaboration with a university project staff. Data collected over a two-year period were used to describe changes that occurred in each CSHP area. Key changes were made in the school environment, curricula, policies, and practices. Qualitative measures showed girls more involved in physical activity. Quantitative measures taken in eighth grade, and repeated with the same set of girls in ninth grade, showed increases in both moderate-to-vigorous physical activity (p = < .01) and vigorous physical activity (p = .04). Other schools can use this case to modify components of the CSHP model to increase physical activity among high school girls. [source] Advocacy to Action: Addressing Coordinated School Health Program Issues with School BoardsJOURNAL OF SCHOOL HEALTH, Issue 1 2005(former trustee, David C. Wiley PhD, FASHA, Hays CISD, Tex.) Professor ABSTRACT: As the need for Coordinated School Health Programs (CSHP) increases, so does recognition of the importance for advocating with local school boards for their support. Identifying the diversified make up of school board members and implementing effective strategies to advocate for coordinated school health can help facilitate the successful inclusion of such a program. With increasing emphasis placed on standardized testing and the "basic" curriculum, school board members need to become aware of specific benefits a CSHP can provide their district. With the relationship between health status and academic achievement confirmed in scientific research, school boards may begin paying more attention to providing high-quality health services and health instruction for students. This article presents items to consider and steps to take before, during, and after addressing a local school board for their support in implementing a CSHP. [source] The School Health Portfolio System: A New Tool for Planning and Evaluating Coordinated School Health ProgramsJOURNAL OF SCHOOL HEALTH, Issue 9 2004Robert M. Weiler ABSTRACT: The School Health Portfolio System (SHPS), developed originally to evaluate the Florida Coordinated School Health Program Pilot Schools Project, offers a new and innovative system for planning and evaluating a coordinated school health program at the individual school level. The SHPS provides practitioners a detailed but easy-to-use system that enables schools to create new programs or modify existing programs across all eight components of the CSHP model, as well as administrative support critical to sustainability. The System comes packaged as a self-contained, notebook-style manual divided into 15 sections. It includes electronic templates of key documents to guide school teams in creating a customized portfolio, and a list of sample goals and artifacts that confirm achievement of a goal related to the school's coordinated school health program. An evaluation rubric provides a structured method to assess a program portfolio's contents, and the extent to which the contents document achievement of program goals. The rubric produces both a qualitative assessment, such as a narrative summary of program strengths and areas for improvement, and a quantitative assessment, such as a numerical score (0,100), letter grade (A-F), or 5-star system (* - *****). The physical structure, function, and scoring of the rubric depend on the method of assessment. The SHPS enables schools to set goals based on individual school needs, and incorporate CSHP goals into school improvement plans - a critical factor in sustainability and accountability. The System also offers teams the option of coordinating their efforts with CDC's School Health Index as a companion assessment measure. This article outlines the process a team would follow in developing a portfolio, and includes a sample assessment for the area of School Health Education. (J Sch Health. 2004;74(9):359,364) [source] Contributions of the American Cancer Society to Coordinated School Health Programs: A Changing View of SchoolsJOURNAL OF SCHOOL HEALTH, Issue 3 2004John R. Seffrin No abstract is available for this article. [source] Training Leaders for School Health Programs: The National School Health Coordinator Leadership InstituteJOURNAL OF SCHOOL HEALTH, Issue 3 2004Scott Winnail First page of article [source] School health programs: A starring role for school nurse practitioners!JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN ACADEMY OF NURSE PRACTITIONERS, Issue 11 2006APRN (Assistant Professor of Nursing Education, Coordinator of the Nursing Education Graduate Program), Nursing Informatics, PhD(c), Scott Weber EdD No abstract is available for this article. [source] A Retrospective Examination of the Relationship Between Implementation Quality of the Coordinated School Health Program Model and School-Level Academic Indicators Over Time,JOURNAL OF SCHOOL HEALTH, Issue 3 2009Scott Rosas PhD ABSTRACT BACKGROUND:, Although models such as the coordinated school health program (CSHP) are widely available to address student health needs, school professionals have been unconvinced that scarce resources should be allocated to improving student health. Concern that attention may be diverted from meeting academic accountability goals is often seen as a reason not to attend to student health. Despite continuing calls for the study of multicomponent health programs in relation to educational achievement, the understanding of the extent to which adherence to the characteristics of CSHP contributes to or compromises academic outcomes over time remains incomplete. METHODS:, A retrospective study was conducted of CSHP implementation across 158 public schools in Delaware, serving grades K-12. Using a doubly multivariate design, this study examined 3 levels of CSHP implementation across 5 school-level academic indicators for 3 years. Indicators included school performance, school progress, and aggregated student performance in 3 content areas,reading, mathematics, and writing. Data for the years prior to, during, and following implementation of CSHP were analyzed. RESULTS:, Multivariate main effects of year by implementation level were detected. CSHP schools with high levels of implementation had better school-level performance and progress ratings. CSHP implementation did not have an effect on reading, math, and writing indicators, though all groups showed significant improvements over time in these areas. CONCLUSIONS:, Results of this study suggest that quality implementation of CSHP does not adversely impact school-level academic indicators over time. Moreover, findings suggest a better fit with school-wide accountability indicators than with specific content-based achievement indicators. [source] The School Health Portfolio System: A New Tool for Planning and Evaluating Coordinated School Health ProgramsJOURNAL OF SCHOOL HEALTH, Issue 9 2004Robert M. Weiler ABSTRACT: The School Health Portfolio System (SHPS), developed originally to evaluate the Florida Coordinated School Health Program Pilot Schools Project, offers a new and innovative system for planning and evaluating a coordinated school health program at the individual school level. The SHPS provides practitioners a detailed but easy-to-use system that enables schools to create new programs or modify existing programs across all eight components of the CSHP model, as well as administrative support critical to sustainability. The System comes packaged as a self-contained, notebook-style manual divided into 15 sections. It includes electronic templates of key documents to guide school teams in creating a customized portfolio, and a list of sample goals and artifacts that confirm achievement of a goal related to the school's coordinated school health program. An evaluation rubric provides a structured method to assess a program portfolio's contents, and the extent to which the contents document achievement of program goals. The rubric produces both a qualitative assessment, such as a narrative summary of program strengths and areas for improvement, and a quantitative assessment, such as a numerical score (0,100), letter grade (A-F), or 5-star system (* - *****). The physical structure, function, and scoring of the rubric depend on the method of assessment. The SHPS enables schools to set goals based on individual school needs, and incorporate CSHP goals into school improvement plans - a critical factor in sustainability and accountability. The System also offers teams the option of coordinating their efforts with CDC's School Health Index as a companion assessment measure. This article outlines the process a team would follow in developing a portfolio, and includes a sample assessment for the area of School Health Education. (J Sch Health. 2004;74(9):359,364) [source] An Evaluation of Client Satisfaction With Training Programs and Technical Assistance Provided by Florida's Coordinated School Health Program OfficeJOURNAL OF SCHOOL HEALTH, Issue 9 2000Robert M. Weiler ABSTRACT: Client or customer satisfaction surveys assess the perceived quality of programs, products, services, and employee performance. Such assessments prove beneficial for evaluation and planning purposes. This survey examined the satisfaction of clients using the programs, services, and technical assistance provided through the Coordinated School Health Program Office (CSHPO) in the Florida Department of Education. Using the 42-item Client Satisfaction Survey, data were collected in summer 1999 from 300 of 574 clients (52.3%) who attended training sessions or sought technical assistance from CSHPO during 1996,1999. More than two-thirds (67.2%) of clients rated the training programs as "very good" or "excellent" at increasing their understanding about the concept of a coordinated school health program. Overall, 69.7% of clients rated the training programs they attended as "very good" or "excellent." Resource materials and staff effectiveness rated positively as well. Findings confirmed client satisfaction with CSHPO's training programs, technical assistance, and staff. Information obtained through the client satisfaction survey can be used by CSHPO to assist in future program planning and resource allocations. [source] Implementation of a Coordinated School Health Program in a Rural, Low-Income CommunityJOURNAL OF SCHOOL HEALTH, Issue 9 2007BSHRM, Lisa Cornwell RN ABSTRACT Background:, Coordinated school health programs (CSHPs) bring together educational and community resources in the school environment. This method is particularly important in rural areas like Kansas, where resources and trained health professionals are in short supply. Rural Stafford County, Kansas, struggles with health professional shortages and a low-income, high-need population. Methods:, In 2001, Stafford County's Unified School District 349 began a multiyear CSHP development process, which required adaptations for implementation in a rural area. First, a CSHP team was formed of community and administrative stakeholders as well as school system representatives. Next, the CSHP team assessed school district demographics so the program framework could be targeted to health needs. During a yearlong planning phase, the CSHP team determined 4 priority areas for program development, as limited staff and funds precluded developing programs in all 8 traditional CSHP areas. Program activities were tailored to the population demographics and available resources. Results:, Program outcomes were supported by School Health Index (SHI) data. Of the 8 CSHP focus areas, the SHI found high scores in 3 of the Stafford CSHP's priority areas: Health Services; Psychological, Counseling, and Social Services; and Physical Education. The fourth Stafford CSHP priority area, Nutrition Services, scored similarly to the less prioritized areas. Conclusions:, The process by which the Stafford school district modified and implemented CSHP methods can serve as a model for CSHPs in other rural, high-need areas. [source] Overview and Summary: School Health Policies and Programs Study 2006JOURNAL OF SCHOOL HEALTH, Issue 8 2007Laura Kann PhD ABSTRACT Background:, The School Health Policies and Programs Study (SHPPS) 2006 is the largest, most comprehensive assessment of school health programs in the United States ever conducted. Methods:, The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention conducts SHPPS every 6 years. In 2006, computer-assisted telephone interviews or self-administered mail questionnaires were completed by state education agency personnel in all 50 states plus the District of Columbia and among a nationally representative sample of districts (n = 538). Computer-assisted personal interviews were conducted with personnel in a nationally representative sample of elementary, middle, and high schools (n = 1103) and with a nationally representative sample of teachers of classes covering required health instruction in elementary schools and required health education courses in middle and high schools (n = 912) and teachers of required physical education classes and courses (n = 1194). Results:, SHPPS 2006 describes key school health policies and programs across all 8 school health program components: health education, physical education and activity, health services, mental health and social services, nutrition services, healthy and safe school environment, faculty and staff health promotion, and family and community involvement. SHPPS 2006 also provides data to monitor 6 Healthy People 2010 objectives. Conclusions:, SHPPS 2006 is a new and important resource for school and public health practitioners, scientists, advocates, policymakers, and all those who care about the health and safety of youth and their ability to succeed academically and socially. [source] Family and Community Involvement in Schools: Results From the School Health Policies and Programs Study 2006JOURNAL OF SCHOOL HEALTH, Issue 8 2007Shannon Michael MPH ABSTRACT Background:, Family and community involvement in schools is linked strongly to improvements in the academic achievement of students, better school attendance, and improved school programs and quality. Methods:, The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention conducts the School Health Policies and Programs Study every 6 years. In 2006, computer-assisted telephone interviews or self-administered mail questionnaires were completed by state education agency personnel in all 50 states plus the District of Columbia and among a nationally representative sample of school districts (n = 461). Computer-assisted personal interviews were conducted with personnel in a nationally representative sample of elementary, middle, and high schools (n = 1029) and with a nationally representative sample of teachers of required health education classes and courses (n = 912) and required physical education classes and courses (n = 1194). Results:, Although family and community involvement in states, districts, and schools was limited, many states, districts, and schools collaborated with community groups and agencies to promote and support school health programs. More than half of districts and schools communicated information to families on school health program components. Teachers in 55.5% of required health education classes and courses and 30.8% of required physical education classes and courses gave students homework or projects that involved family members. Conclusions:, Although family and community involvement occurred at all levels, many schools are not doing some of the fundamental things schools could do to increase family involvement. Improvements in family and community involvement can support school health programs in states, districts, schools, and classrooms nationwide. [source] Health Educators' Role in Promoting Health Literacy and Advocacy for the 21st CenturyJOURNAL OF SCHOOL HEALTH, Issue 10 2001Marlene K. Tappe PhD ABSTRACT: This article discusses the relationship between health literacy and advocacy for health and health education, cites achievement of advocacy as a critical outcome of health education, and identifies health advocacy competencies for both students and health educators. The paper also delineates a role for health education in developing health-literate citizens and in training health educators to advocate for health and health education. The article draws on recent initiatives in comprehensive school health education and coordinated school health programs to identify content and strategies for developing health advocacy skills among elementary, middle, and senior high school students. The article provides a variety of approaches and strategies for developing advocacy skills among preservice and inservice health educators. [source] A Model for Mapping Linkages Between Health and Education Agencies to Improve School HealthJOURNAL OF SCHOOL HEALTH, Issue 2 2000Lawrence St. Leger ABSTRACT: Efforts to develop effective and sustainable school health programs evolved in sophistication the past 20 years through research and practical experience. This paper reviews these developments, arguing they were significantly driven by public health priorities, and have not adequately accounted for educational perspectives and priorities. To better understand the differences in perspective, a model is presented which illustrates linkages between different school-based inputs and strategies, and long-term health and educational outcomes. The model describes similarities and differences between the two perspectives. A significant coincidence exists in factors that determine educational attainment and improved health outcomes for students. A more holistic and integrated approach to school health is emerging, and at these interfaces our implementation and research efforts for the 21st century should be concentrated. [source] | ||||||||||