OBJECTIVES: Process evaluation is a necessary component of randomized controlled field trials. This is a descriptive article that reviews process evaluation for the ACTION Wellness Program for Elementary School Personnel. METHODS: : Methods included self-report by participants, documentation by program staff, and school administrator report. Variables evaluated were program dose, fidelity and reach, exposure to materials and activities, and school factors that could influence program implementation and outcomes. RESULTS: Dose and exposure were high across intervention schools and intervention years. Reach was variable across schools and activities. Schools on the East Bank of the Mississippi River generally had slightly better reach than schools on the West Bank. Some nutrition activities had higher levels of participation than physical activities. CONCLUSIONS: High program dose reflected good effort and cooperation by program staff and schools. A disconnect between exposure and reach showed that high exposure did not always translate to high participation.
OBJECTIVES: Process evaluation is a necessary component of randomized controlled field trials. This is a descriptive article that reviews process evaluation for the ACTION Wellness Program for Elementary School Personnel. METHODS: : Methods included self-report by participants, documentation by program staff, and school administrator report. Variables evaluated were program dose, fidelity and reach, exposure to materials and activities, and school factors that could influence program implementation and outcomes. RESULTS: Dose and exposure were high across intervention schools and intervention years. Reach was variable across schools and activities. Schools on the East Bank of the Mississippi River generally had slightly better reach than schools on the West Bank. Some nutrition activities had higher levels of participation than physical activities. CONCLUSIONS: High program dose reflected good effort and cooperation by program staff and schools. A disconnect between exposure and reach showed that high exposure did not always translate to high participation.
Authors: D L Helitzer; S M Davis; J Gittelsohn; S B Going; D M Murray; P Snyder; A B Steckler Journal: Am J Clin Nutr Date: 1999-04 Impact factor: 7.045
Authors: David A Dzewaltowski; Paul A Estabrooks; Lisa M Klesges; Sheana Bull; Russell E Glasgow Journal: Health Promot Int Date: 2004-06 Impact factor: 2.483
Authors: D R Young; A Steckler; S Cohen; C Pratt; G Felton; S G Moe; J Pickrel; C C Johnson; M Grieser; L A Lytle; J-S Lee; B Raburn Journal: Health Educ Res Date: 2008-06-16
Authors: Diane L Elliot; David P Mackinnon; Linda Mabry; Yasemin Kisbu-Sakarya; Carol A Defrancesco; Stephany J Coxe; Kerry S Kuehl; Esther L Moe; Linn Goldberg; Kim C Favorite Journal: Transl Behav Med Date: 2012-06 Impact factor: 3.046
Authors: Debbie Wierenga; Luuk H Engbers; Pepijn van Empelen; Vincent H Hildebrandt; Willem van Mechelen Journal: BMC Public Health Date: 2012-08-07 Impact factor: 3.295
Authors: Luke Wolfenden; Sharni Goldman; Fiona G Stacey; Alice Grady; Melanie Kingsland; Christopher M Williams; John Wiggers; Andrew Milat; Chris Rissel; Adrian Bauman; Margaret M Farrell; France Légaré; Ali Ben Charif; Hervé Tchala Vignon Zomahoun; Rebecca K Hodder; Jannah Jones; Debbie Booth; Benjamin Parmenter; Tim Regan; Sze Lin Yoong Journal: Cochrane Database Syst Rev Date: 2018-11-14