Cited by 58School Health and Nursing EducationHealth Policy Implementation ScienceNutrition, Health and Food Behavior

Krachtvoer: process evaluation of a Dutch programme for lower vocational schools to promote healthful diet

Open access
Martens, M.·2006·Health Education Research

Abstract

The aim of this study was to examine the fidelity and completeness of the implementation of a school-based healthful diet promotion programme called 'Krachtvoer' (we use the Dutch title of the programme throughout this article. A possible translation is Power Food, but this does not reflect the play on words in the Dutch title), aimed at lower vocational training students aged 12-14 years. The teachers' and students' opinions of the programme were also assessed, as well as the association between these opinions and the level of implementation. Data were collected through structured teachers' monitoring reports, in-class observations and in-depth interviews with teachers. Further data were drawn from a student questionnaire included in a concurrent cluster-randomized baseline post-test experimental study evaluating the effects of the programme. The present study indicates that the teachers implemented the programme largely according to plan, that the teachers appreciated most parts of the programme and that the students who were exposed to the programme were more appreciative of their nutrition education lessons than students who followed the usual curriculum. However, programme elements that teachers did not like were often not implemented. We conclude that the Krachtvoer programme is a promising tool to encourage students in lower vocational training to adopt diets that are more healthful. The present study revealed the stronger and weaker parts of the programme and can thus guide programme improvement.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1093/her/cyl082

Cites

18 of 18 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Self-report is the most common means of evaluating the responsiveness of all participants to an intervention.

    “Self-report is the most common means of evaluating the responsiveness of all participants to an intervention [30-34,37].”

    From A conceptual framework for implementation fidelity (2007) · cites this paper as [34]

    The Method (pp. 4–5) describes student questionnaires, teacher monitoring reports and teacher interviews that gathered participants’ views of the programme. It also describes classroom observations and a triangulated evaluation. This supports self-report as one means used in this study, but not the broader claim that it is the most common means of evaluating all participants’ responsiveness to interventions. (LLM, conf=0.84)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Krachtvoer has been systematically developed and adapted over time based on available theoretical and empirical knowledge and results from effect and process evaluation studies of Krachtvoer and has a phased approach.

    “Krachtvoer has been systematically developed and adapted over time based on available theoretical and empirical knowledge and results from effect and process evaluation studies of Krachtvoer and has a phased approach [26, 27, 28].”

    From Balancing Fidelity and Adaptation: Action‐Oriented Research Towards Implementing a Nutrition Education Program Among Adolescents (2025) · cites this paper as [28]

    The intervention section (pp. 2, 4) says Krachtvoer was developed using intervention mapping, theoretical knowledge and preliminary studies, and describes its three phases. The Discussion (p. 9) says the effect and process evaluations can guide future revisions; it does not establish that the programme had already been adapted over time based on those evaluations. (LLM, conf=0.88)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Program characteristics were identified that facilitated the implementation process, demonstrating the impact of the implementation studies conducted on earlier versions of Krachtvoer.

    “In particular, program characteristics were identified that facilitated the implementation process, demonstrating the impact of the implementation studies conducted on earlier versions of Krachtvoer [27, 28].”

    From Balancing Fidelity and Adaptation: Action‐Oriented Research Towards Implementing a Nutrition Education Program Among Adolescents (2025) · cites this paper as [28]

    The General opinions of the programme section (p. 6) identifies features teachers valued, including its practical approach, free materials and varied activities; the Discussion (p. 8) links students’ preferences to how fully teachers implemented lessons. The intervention section (p. 2) says earlier focus groups informed design choices intended to promote implementation, but the paper does not demonstrate that studies of earlier Krachtvoer versions caused the facilitating characteristics observed here. (LLM, conf=0.82)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • In a study of a school-based health promotion intervention, teachers reported that they did not implement certain components of the intervention if they felt the students were not responding and were not interested.

    “In a study of a school-based health promotion intervention, the teachers reported that they did not implement certain components of the intervention if they felt the students were not responding and were not interested [34].”

    From A conceptual framework for implementation fidelity (2007) · cites this paper as [34]

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 4

  1. [5]5. Munoz KA, Krebs-Smith SM, Ballard-Barbasch R et al. Food intake of US children and adolescents compared with recommendations. Pediatr 1997; 100 : 323-9.
  2. [6]6. Matthews R. Importance of breakfast to cognitive performance and health. Perspect Appl Nutr 1996; 3 : 204-12.
  3. [10]10. Mynard M, Gunnel D, Emmet P et al. Fruit, vegetable and antioxidants in childhood and risk of adult cancer. J Epidemiol Community Health 2003; 57 : 218-25.
  4. [22]22. Martens M, Wind M, Van Assema P et al. De (on) mogelijkheden van voedingsvoorlichting aan twaalftot veertienjarige jongeren [Opportunities and pitfalls of nutrition education for adolescents aged 12-14]. Ned Tijdschr Die ¨tisten 2002; 57 : 71-7.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Martens, M.
Affiliations
Maastricht University (NL)
Corresponding author
Martens, M.
Venue
Health Education Research
Published
2006-05-15
Volume
21
Issue
5
Pages
695-704
ISSN
  • 0268-1153 (ISSN-L)
  • 1465-3648
OpenAlex
W2153888161
Cited by
58
References
18
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 10 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 1 · 2021: 3 · 2020: 1 · 2019: 1 · 2018: 2 · 2017: 1 · 2016: 2 · 2015: 4 · 2014: 4 · 2013: 5 · 2012: 4
FWCI
6.02
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Health Education Research (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Research Publications (Maastricht University) (publishedVersion, other-oa)
  • EUR Research Repository (Erasmus University Rotterdam) (submittedVersion)
  • TNO Repository (submittedVersion)
  • Repository hosted by TU Delft Library (TU Delft) (submittedVersion)
  • Data Archiving and Networked Services (DANS) (submittedVersion)
  • Research Publications (Maastricht University) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Speech and Hearing › School Health and Nursing Education
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Health Policy Implementation Science
  • Health Sciences › Nursing › Nutrition and Dietetics › Nutrition, Health and Food Behavior
Keywords
nutrition education, teacher perceptions, student perceptions, adolescents, school health promotion, program improvement
MeSH terms
Adolescent, Child, Curriculum, Faculty, Feeding Behavior, Female, Health Education, Health Promotion, Humans, Male, Netherlands, Schools, Students, Teaching Materials, Program Evaluation

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review