Background: A systematic review characterised and synthesised applications of the Community Readiness Tool (CRT) and synthesised quantitative results for readiness applications at multiple time points. Methods: Eleven databases in OvidSP and EBSCHOhost were searched to retrieve CRT applications. Information from primary studies was extracted independently by two researchers. Results: Forty applications of the CRT met inclusion criteria focussing on 14 different health and social issues. The community of interest was most often defined solely on the basis of its geographical location (52.5%). Most studies used the CRT to plan (85%) and/or evaluate programs (40%). The CRT protocol was modified in 40% of studies. Six applications evaluated readiness at multiple time points, however limited reporting in primary studies precluded any synthesis of results. Applications identified methodological rigour, contextual information and community engagement as strengths, and time and resource costs as limitations. Conclusions: The CRT is well suited for planning and evaluating complex community health interventions given its flexibility to accommodate diverse definitions of community and issues. CRT applications would benefit from improved reporting; reporting recommendations for use of the CRT are outlined.

Little research has assessed the fidelity, adaptation or integrity of activities implemented within community-based obesity prevention initiatives. To address this gap, a mixed-method process evaluation was undertaken in the context of the South Australian Obesity Prevention and Lifestyle (OPAL) initiative. An ecological coding procedure assessed fidelity and adaptation of activity settings, targets and strategies implemented in the second year of four communities. Implementation integrity reflected fidelity and adaptation to local context, whereas efforts resulting in significant deviations from the original plan were deemed to lack fidelity and integrity. Staff implemented 284 strategies in 205 projects. Results show that 68.3 and 2.1% of strategies were implemented with fidelity or adapted, respectively. Overall, 70.4% of all strategies were implemented with integrity. Staff experienced barriers with 29.6% of strategies. Chi-square analyses show statistically significant associations between implementation integrity and strategy type, intervention and behavioural targets. These relationships are weak to modest. The strongest relationship was found between implementation integrity and proximal target. Staff experienced implementation barriers at the coalition, policy, organization, interpersonal and community levels. The greatest range of barriers was encountered working with organizations. To overcome these barriers, staff took greater ownership, invested more time, persisted and allocated more financial resources.

BackgroundCommunity readiness for facilitation and uptake of interventions can impact the success of community-based prevention efforts. As currently practiced, measuring community readiness can be a resource intensive process, compromising its use in evaluating multisite community-based prevention efforts. The purpose of this study was to develop, test and validate a more efficient online version of an existing community readiness tool and identify potential problems in completing assessments. This study was conducted in the context of a complex community-based childhood obesity prevention program in South Australia.MethodsFollowing pre-testing, an online version of the community readiness tool was created, wherein respondents, with detailed knowledge of their community and prevention efforts, rated their communities on five anchored rating scales (Knowledge of Efforts, Leadership, Knowledge of the Issue, Community Climate, and Resources). Respondents completed the standard, over-the-phone community readiness interview (“gold standard”) and the new online survey. Paired t-test, St. Laurent’s correlation coefficient and intra-class correlation (ICC) were used to determine the validity of the online tool. Contact summary forms were completed after each interview to capture interview quality.ResultsTwenty-five respondents completed both assessments. There was a statistically significant difference in the overall community readiness scores between the two methods (paired t-test p = 0.03); online scores were consistently higher than interview scores. St. Laurent’s correlation of 0.58 (95 % CI 0.42–0.73) was moderate; the ICC of 0.65 (95 % CI 0.35–0.83) was good. Only for the leadership and resources dimensions was there no statistically significant difference between the scores from the two methods (p = 0.61, p = 0.08 respectively). St Laurent’s correlation (r = 0.83, 95 % CI 0.71–0.92) and the ICC (0.78, 95 % CI 0.57–0.90) were excellent for leadership. Qualitative results from the standard interview method suggest that some respondents felt reluctant to answer questions on behalf of other community members. This may have impacted their self-selected ratings and/or responses to questions during the interview.ConclusionsConcurrent validity for the online method was supported for the Leadership dimension only. However, the online method holds promise as it reduces time and resource burden, allowing for a quicker return of results to the community to inform program planning, implementation and evaluations to improve community health.

Issue addressed The context of community-based childhood obesity prevention programs can influence the effects of these intervention programs. Leadership readiness for community mobilisation for childhood obesity prevention is one such contextual factor. This study assessed perceived community leadership readiness (PCLR) at two time points in a state-wide, multisite community-based childhood obesity prevention program. Methods PCLR was assessed across 168 suburbs of 20 intervention communities participating in South Australia's Obesity Prevention and Lifestyle (OPAL) program. Using a validated online PCLR tool, four key respondents from each community rated each suburb within their respective community on a nine-point scale for baseline and 2015. Average PCLR and change scores were calculated using the general linear model with suburbs nested in communities. Relationships between demographic variables and change in PCLR were evaluated using multiple regression. Ease of survey use was also assessed. Results Average PCLR increased between baseline (3.51, s.d.=0.82) and 2015 (5.23, s.d.=0.89). PCLR rose in 18 of 20 intervention communities. PCLR was inversely associated with suburb population size (r=0.03, P=0.03, β=-0.25) and positively associated with intervention duration (r change=0.08, P=0.00, β=0.29). Only 8% of survey respondents considered the online assessment tool difficult to use. Conclusions PCLR increased over the course of the OPAL intervention. PCLR varied between and within communities. Online assessment of PCLR has utility for multisite program evaluations. So what? Use of a novel, resource-efficient online tool to measure the key contextual factors of PCLR has enabled a better understanding of the success and generalisability of the OPAL program.

No abstract