Nutr Res Pract.  2012 Apr;6(2):138-145.

The effect of a healthy school tuck shop program on the access of students to healthy foods

• Kim K
• Hong SA
• Yun SH
• Ryou HJ
• Lee SS
• Kim MK

Abstract

The objective of this study was to evaluate the effect of a healthy school tuck shop program, developed as a way of creating a healthy and nutritional school environment, on students' access to healthy foods. Five middle schools and four high schools (775 students) participated in the healthy school tuck shop program, and nine schools (1,282 students) were selected as the control group. The intervention program included restriction of unhealthy foods sold in tuck shops, provision of various fruits, and indirect nutritional education with promotion of healthy food products. The program evaluation involved the examination of students' purchase and intake patterns of healthy foods, satisfaction with the available foodstuffs, and utilization of and satisfaction with nutritional educational resources. Our results indicated that among of the students who utilized the tuck shop, about 40% purchased fruit products, showing that availability of healthy foods in the tuck shop increased the accessibility of healthy foods for students. Overall food purchase and intake patterns did not significantly change during the intervention period. However, students from the intervention schools reported higher satisfaction with the healthy food products sold in the tuck shop than did those from the control schools (all P < 0.001), and they were highly satisfied with the educational resources provided to them. In conclusion, the healthy school tuck shop program had a positive effect on the accessibility of healthy food. The findings suggest that a healthy school tuck shop may be an effective environmental strategy for promoting students' access to healthy foods.

Keyword

School tuck shop; healthy eating; intervention program; fruits and vegetables

MeSH Terms

Fruit
Humans
Program Evaluation

Reference

1. Government Office for Science. Tackling Obesities: Future Choices-International Comparisons of Obesity Trends, Determinants and Responses-Evidence Review, URN 07/926A2. 2007. London: Government Office for Science.

2. Sallis JF, Owen N. Glanz K, Rimer BK, Lewis FM, editors. Ecological models of health behavior. Health Behavior and Health Education. Theory, Research, and Practice. 2002. 3rd ed. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass;462–484.

3. Story M, Nanney MS, Schwartz MB. Schools and obesity prevention: creating school environments and policies to promote healthy eating and physical activity. Milbank Q. 2009. 87:71–100.

4. World Health Organization. Diet, Nutrition and the Prevention of Chronic Diseases. Report of a Joint WHO/FAO Expert Consultation. WHO Technical Report Series No 916. 2003. Geneva: World Health Organization.

5. French SA, Stables G. Environmental interventions to promote vegetable and fruit consumption among youth in school settings. Prev Med. 2003. 37:593–610.

6. French SA, Wechsler H. School-based research and initiatives: fruit and vegetable environment, policy, and pricing workshop. Prev Med. 2004. 39:Suppl 2. S101–S107.

7. Swinburn BA, Caterson I, Seidell JC, James WP. Diet, nutrition and the prevention of excess weight gain and obesity. Public Health Nutr. 2004. 7:123–146.

8. Tak NI, Te Velde SJ, Brug J. Long-term effects of the Dutch Schoolgruiten Project--promoting fruit and vegetable consumption among primary-school children. Public Health Nutr. 2009. 12:1213–1223.

9. Cullen KW, Hartstein J, Reynolds KD, Vu M, Resnicow K, Greene N, White MA. Studies to Treat or Prevent Pediatric Type 2 Diabetes Prevention Study Group. Improving the school food environment: results from a pilot study in middle schools. J Am Diet Assoc. 2007. 107:484–489.

10. Cullen KW, Watson K, Zakeri I, Ralston K. Exploring changes in middle-school student lunch consumption after local school food service policy modifications. Public Health Nutr. 2006. 9:814–820.

11. Rasmussen M, Krølner R, Klepp KI, Lytle L, Brug J, Bere E, Due P. Determinants of fruit and vegetable consumption among children and adolescents: a review of the literature. Part I: Quantitative studies. Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act. 2006. 3:22.

12. French SA, Story M, Fulkerson JA, Gerlach AF. Food environment in secondary schools: a la carte, vending machines, and food policies and practices. Am J Public Health. 2003. 93:1161–1167.

13. Neumark-Sztainer D, French SA, Hannan PJ, Story M, Fulkerson JA. School lunch and snacking patterns among high school students: associations with school food environment and policies. Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act. 2005. 2:14.

14. Bere E, Veierød MB, Klepp KI. The Norwegian School Fruit Programme: evaluating paid vs. no-cost subscriptions. Prev Med. 2005. 41:463–470.

15. Nutritional Guidelines on School Lunch or Snacks for Primary School Students. Department of Health [Internet]. 2006. cited 2008 November 28. Hong Kong: Department of Health;Available from: http://sc.eatsmart.gov.hk/gb/school.eatsmart.gov.hk/eng/template/index.asp?pid=0&id=316.

16. Department of Health and Department for Children, Schools and Families. Healthy Weight, Healthy Lives: a Cross-Government Strategy for England. 2008. London: Department of Health and Department for Children, Schools and Families.

17. Food in School Primary Training Program. Department of Health and Department for Education and Skills [Internet]. 2008. cited 2008 November 28. London: Department of Health and Department for Education and Skills;Available from: http://www.foodinschools.org/index.php.

18. The Model School Tuck Shop Programme. Health Promotion Board [Internet]. 2008. cited 2008 November 28. Singapore: Health Promotion Board;Available from: http://www.hpb.gov.sg/hpb/default.asp?pg_id=1709.

19. New South Wales Department of Education & Training. Fresh Tastes NSW Healthy School Canteen Strategy. 2006. Sydney: New South Wales Department of Education & Training.

20. Health Promotion Division. Fruit Tuck Shops in Primary Schools. 2008. Wales: Health Promotion Division.

21. WHO Regional Office for Europe. Food and Nutrition Policy for Schools. A Tool for the Development of School Nutrition Programmes in the European Region. 2006. Copenhagen: WHO Regional Office for Europe.

22. Moe J, Roberts J, Moore L. Planning and running fruit tuck shops in primary schools. Health Educ. 2001. 101:61–68.

23. Moore L, Tapper K. The impact of school fruit tuck shops and school food policies on children's fruit consumption: a cluster randomised trial of schools in deprived areas. J Epidemiol Community Health. 2008. 62:926–931.

24. Division of Health Promotion. Improving the Environment for Healthy Foods, a Pilot Study of Healthy Tuckshop. 2008. Seoul: Division of Health Promotion.

25. Korea Food and Drug Administration. The Nutrition Standards for High-Calorie Foods with Low Nutritional Value. 2009. Seoul: Korea Food and Drug Administration.

26. Klepp KI, Pérez-Rodrigo C, De Bourdeaudhuij I, Due PP, Elmadfa I, Haraldsdóttir J, Konig J, Sjostrom M, Thórsdóttir I, Vaz de Almeida MD, Yngve A, Brug J. Promoting fruit and vegetable consumption among European schoolchildren: rationale, conceptualization and design of the pro children project. Ann Nutr Metab. 2005. 49:212–220.

27. Lester I. Australia's Food and Nutrition. Cat. No. ABS 8904.0. 1994. Canberra: AIHW, Australian Institute of Heatlh and Welfare.

28. Bere E, Veierød MB, Bjelland M, Klepp KI. Outcome and process evaluation of a Norwegian school-randomized fruit and vegetable intervention: Fruits and Vegetables Make the Marks (FVMM). Health Educ Res. 2006. 21:258–267.

29. Brug J, Yngve A, Klepp KI. The pro children study: conceptualization, baseline results and intervention development of a European effort to promote fruit and vegetable consumption in schoolchildren. Ann Nutr Metab. 2005. 49:209–211.

30. Bere E, Klepp KI. Correlates of fruit and vegetable intake among Norwegian schoolchildren: parental and self-reports. Public Health Nutr. 2004. 7:991–998.

31. Bere E, Klepp KI. Changes in accessibility and preferences predict children's future fruit and vegetable intake. Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act. 2005. 2:15.

32. Cullen KW, Baranowski T, Owens E, Marsh T, Rittenberry L, de Moor C. Availability, accessibility, and preferences for fruit, 100% fruit juice, and vegetables influence children's dietary behavior. Health Educ Behav. 2003. 30:615–626.

33. Neumark-Sztainer D, Wall M, Perry C, Story M. Correlates of fruit and vegetable intake among adolescents. Findings from Project EAT. Prev Med. 2003. 37:198–208.

34. Epstein LH, Gordy CC, Raynor HA, Beddome M, Kilanowski CK, Paluch R. Increasing fruit and vegetable intake and decreasing fat and sugar intake in families at risk for childhood obesity. Obes Res. 2001. 9:171–178.

35. Anderson AS, Porteous LE, Foster E, Higgins C, Stead M, Hetherington M, Ha MA, Adamson AJ. The impact of a school-based nutrition education intervention on dietary intake and cognitive and attitudinal variables relating to fruits and vegetables. Public Health Nutr. 2005. 8:650–656.

36. Blanchette L, Brug J. Determinants of fruit and vegetable consumption among 6-12-year-old children and effective interventions to increase consumption. J Hum Nutr Diet. 2005. 18:431–443.

37. Shepherd J, Harden A, Rees R, Brunton G, Garcia J, Oliver S, Oakley A. Young people and healthy eating: a systematic review of research on barriers and facilitators. Health Educ Res. 2006. 21:239–257.

38. Nicklas TA, O'Neil CE. Process of conducting a 5-a-day intervention with high school students: Gimme 5 (Louisiana). Health Educ Behav. 2000. 27:201–212.

39. Pérez-Rodrigo C, Aranceta J. School-based nutrition education: lessons learned and new perspectives. Public Health Nutr. 2001. 4:131–139.