Evaluation of a large healthy lifestyle program: informing program implementation and scale-up in the prevention of obesity

Kozica, Samantha; Lombard, Catherine B; Harrison, Cheryce L.; Teede, Helena

doi:10.1186/s13012-016-0521-4

Cited by 13 publications

(12 citation statements)

References 58 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Mixed methods have been used in Hybrid 2 designs to evaluate both process and outcomes of program effectiveness and implementation (19, 50, 78). For instance, Hamilton and colleagues (40) studied an evidence-based quality improvement approach for implementing supported employment services at specialty mental health clinics in a site-level controlled trial at four implementation sites and four control sites.…”

Section: Illustrations Of Mixed Methods Designs In Evaluation Researchmentioning

confidence: 99%

Innovations in Mixed Methods Evaluations

Palinkas

Mendon

Hamilton

2019

Annu. Rev. Public Health

224

128

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Mixed methods research—i.e., research that draws on both qualitative and qualitative methods in varying configurations—is well suited to address the increasing complexity of public health problems and their solutions. This review focuses specifically on innovations in mixed methods evaluations of intervention, program or policy (i.e., practice) effectiveness and implementation. The article begins with an overview of the structure, function and process of different mixed methods designs and then provides illustrations of their use in effectiveness studies, implementation studies, and combined effectiveness-implementation hybrid studies. The article then examines four specific innovations: procedures for transforming (or “quantitizing”) qualitative data, applying rapid assessment and analysis procedures in the context of mixed methods studies, development of measures to assess implementation outcomes, and strategies for conducting both random and purposive sampling particularly in implementation-focused evaluation research. The article concludes with an assessment of challenges to integrating qualitative and quantitative data in evaluation research.

show abstract

Section: Illustrations Of Mixed Methods Designs In Evaluation Researchmentioning

confidence: 99%

Innovations in Mixed Methods Evaluations

Palinkas

Mendon

Hamilton

2019

Annu. Rev. Public Health

224

128

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…While little evidence has been generated in the dissemination and implementation of childhood obesity research, there are key similarities between our findings and those reported in adult dissemination and implementation trials for obesity research. For example, Kozica et al [ 18 ] reported on the successful implementation of a healthy lifestyle programme in rural settings, noting the importance of organisational and local stakeholder involvement and buy-in to the programme. In addition, Damschroder et al [ 19 , 20 ] found that the dissemination of a weight management programme in Veterans Affairs Hospitals was strongly dependent on organisational characteristics, and that, in some situations, local champions could overcome organisational barriers.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Community readiness assessment for obesity research: pilot implementation of the Healthier Families programme

Teeters

Heerman

Schlundt

et al. 2018

Health Res Policy Sys

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundThis article reports on the development of a systematic approach to assess for community readiness prior to implementation of a behavioural intervention for childhood obesity. Using the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR), we developed research tools to evaluate local community centres’ organisational readiness and their capacity to implement the intervention.MethodsFour community Parks and Recreation centres from different states expressed interest in piloting an approach for dissemination and implementation of an evidence-based obesity prevention program for families with young children (Healthier Families). We conducted a mixed methods pre-implementation evaluation using the CFIR to evaluate the alignment of organisational priorities with the Healthier Families programme. Written surveys assessed organisational readiness for change amongst organisational leaders, recreation programmers, and staff (N = 25). Key informant interviews were conducted among staff to assess organisational readiness and with community members to assess community readiness (N = 64). Surveys were analysed with univariate statistics. Interviews were transcribed, coded and analysed using inductive and deductive methods of analysis.ResultsMixed-methods analysis led to the identification of three key domains on which to assess the organisational readiness to adopt a childhood obesity intervention, namely the physical infrastructure, the knowledge infrastructure, and the social infrastructure. The most critical measure of compatibility was the social infrastructure, since obstacles in the knowledge and physical infrastructures could be overcome by the strength of social resources, including the staff’s ingenuity and commitment to a healthier community. This approach guided an assessment of organisational readiness prior to community organisations adopting and preparing to disseminate an obesity prevention community-based program in a wide-range of social and environmental contexts.ConclusionsUsing a comprehensive pre-implementation assessment of the knowledge, physical and social infrastructures in a community is an essential step in effective dissemination for community-based behavioural interventions. Our research found that, when evaluating readiness and alignment, a responsive social infrastructure could provide the capacity to overcome potential barriers to implementation in either the knowledge or physical infrastructures.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12961-017-0262-0) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

show abstract

“…MSPs are used across different domains that affect livelihoods such as natural resource management (Faysse, 2006;Warner, 2006a), sustainable intensification (Schut et al, 2016c), environmental management (Kaiser et al, 2016), disaster management (Djalante, 2012), and health services (Vassal et al, 2015;McHugh et al, 2016). Moreover, they are applied as part of different intervention types such as policies (Hale and Mauzerall, 2004;Rothenberger et al, 2005;Kefasi et al, 2011;Beers and Geerling-Eiff, 2014), programs (Adekunle and Fatunbi, 2012;Kozica et al, 2016), and projects (Kilelu et al, 2013;Kaiser et al, 2016), which are further discussed in the following section.…”

Section: Why Study the Contribution Of Msps To R4d Interventions?mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Over the past decade, MSPs have been used to mobilize diverse stakeholders to identify and analyze problems, and to design and implement R4D activities to overcome these problems. Although MSPs are 'branded' differently -as multi-level community partnerships (Kozica et al, 2016;Dickson-Gomez et al, 2016), public-private partnerships (Eggersdorfer and Bird, 2016;Yildirim et al, 2016;Abbott, 2012), multi-stakeholder partnerships (Biermann et al, 2007;Kefasi et al, 2011), multi-stakeholder platforms (Huang et al, 2017;de-Zeeuw, 2010;Thiele et al, 2011), innovation platforms (Kilelu et al, 2013;Schut et al, 2016b;King et al, 2010), and learning alliances (Verhagen et al, 2008;Douthwaite et al, 2003) -they are all used to facilitate the involvement of different stakeholders in interventions, thereby enhancing the impact of the interventions on livelihoods.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Do multi-stakeholder platforms work? : contributions of multi-stakeholder platforms to the performance of research for development interventions

Sartas¹

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Discussion and way forward | 46 3 Social network analysis of multi-stakeholder platforms in agricultural research for development: Opportunities and constraints for innovation and scaling | 51 Abstract | 52 3.1 Introduction | 53 cult days. I also thank Prof. Leeuwis, Dr. Piet van Asten, and Dr. Bernard Vanlauwe for their leadership and guidance during these days. Finally, I would like to thank the amazing research support team of the Wageningen University Communication, Philosophy, and Technology Unit. Vera Mentzel, Inge Ruisch, Mirjam Cevat, Annette Djikstra, and Bea Mentzel were great supporters of my research and helped me to make maximum use of my limited time in Wageningen with their effectiveness, efficiency, and friendliness.

show abstract

Evaluation of a large healthy lifestyle program: informing program implementation and scale-up in the prevention of obesity

Cited by 13 publications

References 58 publications

Innovations in Mixed Methods Evaluations

Innovations in Mixed Methods Evaluations

Community readiness assessment for obesity research: pilot implementation of the Healthier Families programme

Do multi-stakeholder platforms work? : contributions of multi-stakeholder platforms to the performance of research for development interventions

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About