Physical activity is known to contribute to good health, but most adults in the United States do not meet recommended physical activity guidelines. Social incentive interventions that leverage insights from behavioral economics have increased physical activity in short-term trials, but there is limited evidence of their effectiveness in community settings or their long-term effectiveness. The STEP Together study is a Hybrid Type 1 effectiveness-implementation study to address these evidence and implementation gaps. This paper describes the process of adapting study procedures prior to the effectiveness trial using Community Engagement (CE) Studios, facilitated meetings during which community members provide feedback on research projects. Six CE Studios were held with community members from the priority population. They were conducted remotely because of the COVID-19 pandemic. Fifteen liaisons representing 13 community organizations and 21 community members from different neighborhoods in Philadelphia participated. Three elements of the study design were modified based on feedback from the CE Studios: lowering the age requirement for an ‘older adult’, clarifying the definition of family members to include second-degree relatives, and adding a 6-month survey. These adaptations will improve the fit of the effectiveness trial to the local context and improve participant engagement and retention. CE Studios can be used to adapt intervention strategies and other aspects of study design during hybrid implementation-effectiveness trials. This approach was successfully used with remote online participation due to the COVID-19 pandemic and serves as a model for future community-engaged implementation research.

There is an increased call for research on promising prevention programs already embedded in communities (“homegrown interventions”). Unfortunately, there is limited guidance to help researchers prepare these types of interventions for rigorous evaluation. To address this need, this article presents our team’s process for revising a promising community-based sexual violence prevention intervention for rigorous research. Our extensive and iterative process of reviewing and revising the intervention was guided by evaluability assessment (EA) approaches, implementation science, and a close collaboration with our community partners. Our EA process allowed us to specify the intervention’s core components and develop a “research ready” standardized curriculum with implementation fidelity assessments. We offer four lessons learned from our process: (1) even with existing materials and an extensive history of community-based delivery, community-developed programs are not necessarily research-ready; (2) close collaboration and a trusting relationship between researchers and community partners throughout the revision process ensures the integrity of core program components are maintained and implementation in diverse community settings is feasible; (3) observations of program implementation are a crucial part of the revision process; and (4) it is important to budget adequate time and resources for such revisions.