Review of the social ecological model related to physical activity

Two pages are the summary part, which just summarize what you read and do not include your personal opinions and thoughts. The other two pages are the critique so write the strengths and weaknesses of the article you read.

Two Page Summary

The article begins by articulating the obesity epidemic that plagues most of America and the developed world. Here the author sides statistics related to childhood obesity and its implications for society and educational system as a whole. According to the article school-aged children have been shown to have higher rates of overweight (17.9%) and obesity (8.0%) than preschool children (15.2% and 6.3%). The authors suggest that children are much prone to becoming overweight during their school years as oppose to their prior preschool years. To combat this growing trend, schools, governments and law makers have engaged in various campaigns designed to mitigate the influence of a sedentary lifestyle on the life of school aged children. These programs are designed to promote a healthy lifestyle while also providing incentives for students to maintain heathy weights.

The research article looks to evaluate the Emmons social ecological model can be used to help influence the physical activity promotion of schools looking to promote healthier lifestyles in students. The authors were interested in this research as traditionally, ecological models have been the basis for health promotion studies and policy decisions. However, as indicated by the statistics above, the results seem to be negatively impacted by use of these models. Therefore, the authors are looking to challenge the superiority of this model as it relates to policy action. The authors look to establish this through interview with various officials, workers and employees. Here, the authors were looking to determine if the complexity of physical education promotion in schools can ultimately be captured using the social ecological model. The primary data point for the study were interviews conducted with various stakeholder groups within the education industry. The authors interviewed high ranking education officials, teachers, principals, school board members and consultants. A total of 14 interviews were conducted in the study. The author looked to interview different people at each level of the social ecological framework. For example, the authors interviewed individuals who were representative of the policy level, the community level, the organizational level, the interpersonal level and finally the intrapersonal level. The authors admitted that certain individuals could occupy two or more levels within the model. However, they did attempt to capture the thoughts of individuals who occupied a single level of the model. After analyzing the data garnered from the interviews, the authors concluded that traditional social ecological models oversimplified the influence of government policy on the school behaviors related to physical activities. The authors attribute this to multiple demands place on the school by multiple parties how are often not communicated with each other strategically. As a result, schools are often given multiple mandates, by multiple higher-level governing bodies with regard to how each mandate influences the others. These conflicting mandates cause confusion with many schools who are forced to implement these policies and procedures according to the authors. This is combined with limited school funding which puts added pressure on the school to acquiesce to a variety of standards that ultimately cannot be achieved. For example, the authors note that schools are often responsible for the academic achievement of students. This is often their highest priority. However, it difficult for schools, who are on the lower level of the ecological model, to focus on academic achievement when they are also being required to focus on physical activity with very little additional resources to accomplish the mandate. As a result, policy implementation using the social ecological model is difficult as the top down approach does appear to result in better health outcomes for students. Instead it results in poor resource allocations as schools are forced to choose between competing mandates when in reality they are only evaluated on academic performance, which is often the highest priority.

Two Page Critique

As it relates weakness of the article, the most glaring weakness is that of the sample size. The number of individuals interviewed was only 14, which is not statistically significant. Likewise, it is difficult to draw conclusions from such a small sample size. There is a possibility, that the insights gained through the data analysis could be tainted as they do not represent a broad and diverse set of individuals. In addition, the reliability of the results can be misleading due to the small sample size. This ultimately increases the margin of error while simultaneously impacting the reliability of the results. Due to the small sample size the results may be inconclusion and cannot be relied upon.

Likewise, the interview view method and data analysis could potentially be biased. As the sample size is so small, the information gleamed from the interviews may be misleading. This is particularly true as the analysis relied almost exclusively on the interviews to draw their overall conclusions about the merits of the social ecological model. Due to the heavily influence placed on the interviews and little other statistical analysis, it is important for the sample size to be higher and the interview questions to be free from interviewer or interviewee bias. For example, through the article, it is difficult to determine if the interviewee didn’t simply provide answers that the questioner wanted to hear. In addition, by recognizing what the research is for, the interviewee is much more likely to provide socially acceptable answers that may not reflect their true thoughts or feeling toward the topic. This concept is exacerbated as the individuals interviewed hold high ranking and powerful positions within the education field. They may not want to risk being associated with controversial answers that can potentially be misconstrued or taken out of context. In addition, the interviewer has imbedded biases both conscious and unconsciously that can impact the overall objectivity of the interview. Although not explicit in the research, the interviewer may be impacted simply by the first impression of the person being interviewed. A person that is confident and gives a firm handshake during the interview may indirectly bias the opinion of the interviewer as compared to someone who is sweaty and nervous. This could indirectly impact the authors opinion of the merits behind the social ecological model as they may attribute more weight to answers from one individual over the other. Fortunately, the authors attempt to get around this bias through analysis of the transcripts by multiple parties, however, this method only mitigates the biases and doesn’t eliminate it.