Baseline data on coordinated school health programs in the state of Ohio

American Journal of Health Studies, Wntr, 2001 by Jann Greenberg, Randall Cottrell, Amy L. Bernard

PURPOSE

The purpose of this project was to gather baseline data on coordinated school health programs in the state of Ohio. Gathering baseline data was important because it provided a yardstick against which success in promoting this type of program could be measured. The specific questions directing the study were:

1. What percent of school districts had exposure to the concept of coordinated school health education?

2. What percent of districts had committed resources to a coordinated school health education program?

3. In which of the eight components of coordinated school health education were districts most likely to have strengths/weaknesses?

4. What barriers existed that prevented schools from adopting coordinated school health education programs?

5. Did factors such as district size, per pupil expenditure, or location (rural, urban, suburban) have any impact on whether a school district adopted a coordinated school health education program?

The data collected by this project helped establish the current level of coordinated school health programming in Ohio public school districts. The data will be used to evaluate ongoing and future efforts to promote coordinated school health programming statewide.

METHODS

PROCEDURES

This study was conducted in the state of Ohio. At the time of the survey there were 612 public school districts in Ohio. Two hundred and twenty-five surveys, representing 37% of all Ohio public school districts, were randomly selected. Materials were prepared and mailed to superintendents of these school districts throughout the state of Ohio. Self-addressed, stamped, return envelopes were included in each mailing. The instructions asked that the superintendent or designee complete and return the survey. A cover letter from the researcher included with the instrument assured complete confidentiality to participants, explained the need for the survey, and provided the deadline for returning the survey. Definitions to ensure consistent understanding of the terminology specific to coordinated school health and directions for completing the survey were attached to the instrument. A reminder notice was sent to the superintendents of all of the selected districts one week after the survey was mailed out. A follow-up phone call to all selected districts was placed during the second week after the original mailing.

INSTRUMENTATION

The instrument used for this project was a mailed assessment survey. The survey consisted of a total of 109 questions which were of a yes-no forced choice format. Space was left for expanded answers where applicable. In addition, specific information regarding demographics (per pupil expenditure, size of district, and whether the district would characterize itself as urban, rural, or suburban), was requested for comparative purposes.

The survey was divided into sections, each focusing on a specific area of a coordinated school health education program. The breakdown of questions were: administration, 11 questions; food service, 13 questions; health services, 12 questions; counseling/psychology, 10 questions; health instruction, 16 questions; physical education, 15 questions; environment, 8 questions; faculty/staff wellness, 14 questions; family, school, community partnership, 10 questions.