Cargando…
Using process evaluation for program improvement in dose, fidelity and reach: the ACT trial experience
BACKGROUND: The purpose of this study was to demonstrate how formative program process evaluation was used to improve dose and fidelity of implementation, as well as reach of the intervention into the target population, in the "Active by Choice Today" (ACT) randomized school-based trial fr...
Autores principales: | , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
BioMed Central
2009
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2793250/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19948049 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1479-5868-6-79 |
_version_ | 1782175305072377856 |
---|---|
author | Wilson, Dawn K Griffin, Sarah Saunders, Ruth P Kitzman-Ulrich, Heather Meyers, Duncan C Mansard, Leslie |
author_facet | Wilson, Dawn K Griffin, Sarah Saunders, Ruth P Kitzman-Ulrich, Heather Meyers, Duncan C Mansard, Leslie |
author_sort | Wilson, Dawn K |
collection | PubMed |
description | BACKGROUND: The purpose of this study was to demonstrate how formative program process evaluation was used to improve dose and fidelity of implementation, as well as reach of the intervention into the target population, in the "Active by Choice Today" (ACT) randomized school-based trial from years 1 to 3 of implementation. METHODS: The intervention integrated constructs from Self-Determination Theory and Social Cognitive Theory to enhance intrinsic motivation and behavioral skills for increasing long-term physical activity (PA) behavior in underserved adolescents (low income, minorities). ACT formative process data were examined at the end of each year to provide timely, corrective feedback to keep the intervention "on track". RESULTS: Between years 1 and 2 and years 2 and 3, three significant changes were made to attempt to increase dose and fidelity rates in the program delivery and participant attendance (reach). These changes included expanding the staff training, reformatting the intervention manual, and developing a tracking system for contacting parents of students who were not attending the after-school programs regularly. Process outcomes suggest that these efforts resulted in notable improvements in attendance, dose, and fidelity of intervention implementation from years 1 to 2 and 2 to 3 of the ACT trial. CONCLUSION: Process evaluation methods, particularly implementation monitoring, are useful tools to ensure fidelity in intervention trials and for identifying key best practices for intervention delivery. |
format | Text |
id | pubmed-2793250 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2009 |
publisher | BioMed Central |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-27932502009-12-15 Using process evaluation for program improvement in dose, fidelity and reach: the ACT trial experience Wilson, Dawn K Griffin, Sarah Saunders, Ruth P Kitzman-Ulrich, Heather Meyers, Duncan C Mansard, Leslie Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act Research BACKGROUND: The purpose of this study was to demonstrate how formative program process evaluation was used to improve dose and fidelity of implementation, as well as reach of the intervention into the target population, in the "Active by Choice Today" (ACT) randomized school-based trial from years 1 to 3 of implementation. METHODS: The intervention integrated constructs from Self-Determination Theory and Social Cognitive Theory to enhance intrinsic motivation and behavioral skills for increasing long-term physical activity (PA) behavior in underserved adolescents (low income, minorities). ACT formative process data were examined at the end of each year to provide timely, corrective feedback to keep the intervention "on track". RESULTS: Between years 1 and 2 and years 2 and 3, three significant changes were made to attempt to increase dose and fidelity rates in the program delivery and participant attendance (reach). These changes included expanding the staff training, reformatting the intervention manual, and developing a tracking system for contacting parents of students who were not attending the after-school programs regularly. Process outcomes suggest that these efforts resulted in notable improvements in attendance, dose, and fidelity of intervention implementation from years 1 to 2 and 2 to 3 of the ACT trial. CONCLUSION: Process evaluation methods, particularly implementation monitoring, are useful tools to ensure fidelity in intervention trials and for identifying key best practices for intervention delivery. BioMed Central 2009-11-30 /pmc/articles/PMC2793250/ /pubmed/19948049 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1479-5868-6-79 Text en Copyright ©2009 Wilson et al; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0 This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. |
spellingShingle | Research Wilson, Dawn K Griffin, Sarah Saunders, Ruth P Kitzman-Ulrich, Heather Meyers, Duncan C Mansard, Leslie Using process evaluation for program improvement in dose, fidelity and reach: the ACT trial experience |
title | Using process evaluation for program improvement in dose, fidelity and reach: the ACT trial experience |
title_full | Using process evaluation for program improvement in dose, fidelity and reach: the ACT trial experience |
title_fullStr | Using process evaluation for program improvement in dose, fidelity and reach: the ACT trial experience |
title_full_unstemmed | Using process evaluation for program improvement in dose, fidelity and reach: the ACT trial experience |
title_short | Using process evaluation for program improvement in dose, fidelity and reach: the ACT trial experience |
title_sort | using process evaluation for program improvement in dose, fidelity and reach: the act trial experience |
topic | Research |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2793250/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19948049 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1479-5868-6-79 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT wilsondawnk usingprocessevaluationforprogramimprovementindosefidelityandreachtheacttrialexperience AT griffinsarah usingprocessevaluationforprogramimprovementindosefidelityandreachtheacttrialexperience AT saundersruthp usingprocessevaluationforprogramimprovementindosefidelityandreachtheacttrialexperience AT kitzmanulrichheather usingprocessevaluationforprogramimprovementindosefidelityandreachtheacttrialexperience AT meyersduncanc usingprocessevaluationforprogramimprovementindosefidelityandreachtheacttrialexperience AT mansardleslie usingprocessevaluationforprogramimprovementindosefidelityandreachtheacttrialexperience |