Mixed method evaluation of a community-based physical activity program using the RE-AIM framework: practical application in a real-world setting.

Harriet Koorts, Fiona Gillison
Author Information
  1. Harriet Koorts: Centre for Physical Activity and Nutrition Research, Deakin University, Burwood, VIC, 3125, Australia. h.koorts@deakin.edu.au.
  2. Fiona Gillison: Department for Health, University of Bath, Bath, BA2 7AY, UK. f.b.gillison@bath.ac.uk.

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Communities are a pivotal setting in which to promote increases in child and adolescent physical activity behaviours. Interventions implemented in these settings require effective evaluation to facilitate translation of findings to wider settings. The aims of this paper are to i) present findings from a RE-AIM evaluation of a community-based physical activity program, and ii) review the methodological challenges faced when applying RE-AIM in practice.
METHODS: A single mixed-methods case study was conducted based on a concurrent triangulation design. Five sources of data were collected via interviews, questionnaires, archival records, documentation and field notes. Evidence was triangulated within RE-AIM to assess individual and organisational-level program outcomes.
RESULTS: Inconsistent availability of data and a lack of robust reporting challenged assessment of all five dimensions. Reach, Implementation and setting-level Adoption were less successful, Effectiveness and Maintenance at an individual and organisational level were moderately successful. Only community-level Adoption was highly successful, reflecting the key program goal to provide community-wide participation in sport and physical activity.
CONCLUSIONS: This research highlighted important methodological constraints associated with the use of RE-AIM in practice settings. Future evaluators wishing to use RE-AIM may benefit from a mixed-method triangulation approach to offset challenges with data availability and reliability.

References

  1. Br J Sports Med. 2011 Oct;45(13):1052-7 [PMID: 21112875]
  2. Am J Prev Med. 2008 Mar;34(3):216-23 [PMID: 18312810]
  3. Am J Public Health. 2003 Aug;93(8):1261-7 [PMID: 12893608]
  4. Health Educ Q. 1988 Winter;15(4):351-77 [PMID: 3068205]
  5. Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act. 2009 Dec 06;6:82 [PMID: 19961623]
  6. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2009 Jan 21;(1):CD007651 [PMID: 19160341]
  7. Br J Sports Med. 2010 Sep;44(12):879-87 [PMID: 19019902]
  8. Ann Behav Med. 2005 Apr;29 Suppl:66-75 [PMID: 15921491]
  9. Prev Med. 2015 Jul;76:58-67 [PMID: 25900802]
  10. Prev Chronic Dis. 2007 Oct;4(4):A87 [PMID: 17875262]
  11. Eval Program Plann. 2014 Aug;45:71-81 [PMID: 24755377]
  12. BMC Public Health. 2013 Jun 11;13:568 [PMID: 23758638]
  13. J Epidemiol Community Health. 2002 Feb;56(2):119-27 [PMID: 11812811]
  14. BMC Public Health. 2011 Jan 04;11:3 [PMID: 21205290]
  15. Eval Health Prof. 2013 Mar;36(1):44-66 [PMID: 22615498]
  16. BMJ. 2007 Oct 6;335(7622):703 [PMID: 17884863]
  17. J Sport Exerc Psychol. 2011 Apr;33(2):198-214 [PMID: 21558580]
  18. Health Promot Int. 2004 Jun;19(2):235-45 [PMID: 15128715]
  19. Implement Sci. 2012 May 31;7:50 [PMID: 22651257]
  20. Am J Public Health. 1999 Sep;89(9):1322-7 [PMID: 10474547]
  21. Ann Behav Med. 2004 Feb;27(1):3-12 [PMID: 14979858]
  22. Health Promot Pract. 2011 Nov;12(6):932-41 [PMID: 21421774]
  23. Health Promot Int. 2016 Jun;31(2):450-8 [PMID: 25715801]
  24. Am J Prev Med. 2012 Nov;43(5 Suppl 4):S271-80 [PMID: 23079259]
  25. BMC Obes. 2015 May 14;2:21 [PMID: 26217536]
  26. Exerc Sport Sci Rev. 2004 Apr;32(2):57-63 [PMID: 15064649]
  27. Am J Prev Med. 2006 Oct;31(4 Suppl):S35-44 [PMID: 16979468]

MeSH Term

Adolescent
Child
Community Health Services
Humans
Motor Activity
Patient Acceptance of Health Care
Program Evaluation
Reproducibility of Results
Surveys and Questionnaires

Word Cloud

Created with Highcharts 10.0.0RE-AIMphysicalactivityprogramsettingsevaluationdatasuccessfulsettingfindingscommunity-basedmethodologicalchallengespracticetriangulationindividualavailabilityAdoptionuseBACKGROUND:CommunitiespivotalpromoteincreaseschildadolescentbehavioursInterventionsimplementedrequireeffectivefacilitatetranslationwideraimspaperpresentiireviewfacedapplyingMETHODS:singlemixed-methodscasestudyconductedbasedconcurrentdesignFivesourcescollectedviainterviewsquestionnairesarchivalrecordsdocumentationfieldnotesEvidencetriangulatedwithinassessorganisational-leveloutcomesRESULTS:InconsistentlackrobustreportingchallengedassessmentfivedimensionsReachImplementationsetting-levellessEffectivenessMaintenanceorganisationallevelmoderatelycommunity-levelhighlyreflectingkeygoalprovidecommunity-wideparticipationsportCONCLUSIONS:researchhighlightedimportantconstraintsassociatedFutureevaluatorswishingmaybenefitmixed-methodapproachoffsetreliabilityMixedmethodusingframework:practicalapplicationreal-world

Similar Articles

Cited By