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...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Wilson, Dawn K, Griffin, Sarah, Saunders, Ruth P, Kitzman-Ulrich, Heather, Meyers, Duncan C, Mansard, Leslie
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