Cargando…
What Works and for Whom? Outcome Evaluation of an E-mail Walking Program Delivered Through Cooperative Extension
INTRODUCTION: Get WalkIN’ is a 12-week, e-mail-based walking promotion program. The purpose of this study was to (1) compare sociodemographics of participants who enrolled versus completed the program; and (2) evaluate program feasibility/acceptability from perspectives of program participants and c...
Autores principales: | , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
SAGE Publications
2022
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8801713/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35094592 http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/21501319211070683 |
_version_ | 1784642523236401152 |
---|---|
author | Richards, Elizabeth A. Woodcox, Stephanie Forster, Anna |
author_facet | Richards, Elizabeth A. Woodcox, Stephanie Forster, Anna |
author_sort | Richards, Elizabeth A. |
collection | PubMed |
description | INTRODUCTION: Get WalkIN’ is a 12-week, e-mail-based walking promotion program. The purpose of this study was to (1) compare sociodemographics of participants who enrolled versus completed the program; and (2) evaluate program feasibility/acceptability from perspectives of program participants and county-based Extension Educators who implemented the program. METHODS: Participants (N = 875), recruited by county-based Extension Educators, were asked Likert-scale questions (eg, ease of reading the e-mails and frequency of e-mails) to assess program acceptability and open-ended questions regarding improvements. Educators (N = 55) were asked Likert-scale and open-ended questions regarding program training, recruitment, strengths, and areas for improvement. Descriptive statistics summarized participant characteristics, acceptability, and feasibility data. Open-ended responses were analyzed using thematic analysis. RESULTS: There were no significant sociodemographic differences between participants (N = 875) who started the program and completed the program (n = 438). Participants reported intervention e-mails were easy to read (mean = 4.5 ± 0.7), understand (mean = 4.5 ± 0.7), and encouraged more walking (mean = 4.1 ± 0.9). Participants would like to connect/interact with other participants/Educators, have more monitoring tools for accountability, and more visuals/videos embedded within e-mails. Educators reported program training was adequate, e-mail messages were helpful and easy to use, and requested more visuals (eg, videos) to help with recruitment. Educators thought adding a social component (eg, kick-off walk or walking group) would be helpful. CONCLUSIONS: This Extension-delivered walking program is acceptable to participants and feasible to deliver. However, participants and Educators reported they would like more interaction, even if virtual. Future e-mail-based programs should consider ways to incorporate social interaction among users as well as provide a wide variety of recruitment resources. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-8801713 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2022 |
publisher | SAGE Publications |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-88017132022-02-01 What Works and for Whom? Outcome Evaluation of an E-mail Walking Program Delivered Through Cooperative Extension Richards, Elizabeth A. Woodcox, Stephanie Forster, Anna J Prim Care Community Health Original Research INTRODUCTION: Get WalkIN’ is a 12-week, e-mail-based walking promotion program. The purpose of this study was to (1) compare sociodemographics of participants who enrolled versus completed the program; and (2) evaluate program feasibility/acceptability from perspectives of program participants and county-based Extension Educators who implemented the program. METHODS: Participants (N = 875), recruited by county-based Extension Educators, were asked Likert-scale questions (eg, ease of reading the e-mails and frequency of e-mails) to assess program acceptability and open-ended questions regarding improvements. Educators (N = 55) were asked Likert-scale and open-ended questions regarding program training, recruitment, strengths, and areas for improvement. Descriptive statistics summarized participant characteristics, acceptability, and feasibility data. Open-ended responses were analyzed using thematic analysis. RESULTS: There were no significant sociodemographic differences between participants (N = 875) who started the program and completed the program (n = 438). Participants reported intervention e-mails were easy to read (mean = 4.5 ± 0.7), understand (mean = 4.5 ± 0.7), and encouraged more walking (mean = 4.1 ± 0.9). Participants would like to connect/interact with other participants/Educators, have more monitoring tools for accountability, and more visuals/videos embedded within e-mails. Educators reported program training was adequate, e-mail messages were helpful and easy to use, and requested more visuals (eg, videos) to help with recruitment. Educators thought adding a social component (eg, kick-off walk or walking group) would be helpful. CONCLUSIONS: This Extension-delivered walking program is acceptable to participants and feasible to deliver. However, participants and Educators reported they would like more interaction, even if virtual. Future e-mail-based programs should consider ways to incorporate social interaction among users as well as provide a wide variety of recruitment resources. SAGE Publications 2022-01-29 /pmc/articles/PMC8801713/ /pubmed/35094592 http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/21501319211070683 Text en © The Author(s) 2022 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/) which permits non-commercial use, reproduction and distribution of the work without further permission provided the original work is attributed as specified on the SAGE and Open Access pages (https://us.sagepub.com/en-us/nam/open-access-at-sage). |
spellingShingle | Original Research Richards, Elizabeth A. Woodcox, Stephanie Forster, Anna What Works and for Whom? Outcome Evaluation of an E-mail Walking Program Delivered Through Cooperative Extension |
title | What Works and for Whom? Outcome Evaluation of an E-mail Walking Program Delivered Through Cooperative Extension |
title_full | What Works and for Whom? Outcome Evaluation of an E-mail Walking Program Delivered Through Cooperative Extension |
title_fullStr | What Works and for Whom? Outcome Evaluation of an E-mail Walking Program Delivered Through Cooperative Extension |
title_full_unstemmed | What Works and for Whom? Outcome Evaluation of an E-mail Walking Program Delivered Through Cooperative Extension |
title_short | What Works and for Whom? Outcome Evaluation of an E-mail Walking Program Delivered Through Cooperative Extension |
title_sort | what works and for whom? outcome evaluation of an e-mail walking program delivered through cooperative extension |
topic | Original Research |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8801713/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35094592 http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/21501319211070683 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT richardselizabetha whatworksandforwhomoutcomeevaluationofanemailwalkingprogramdeliveredthroughcooperativeextension AT woodcoxstephanie whatworksandforwhomoutcomeevaluationofanemailwalkingprogramdeliveredthroughcooperativeextension AT forsteranna whatworksandforwhomoutcomeevaluationofanemailwalkingprogramdeliveredthroughcooperativeextension |