2020
DOI: 10.1016/j.evalprogplan.2020.101847
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Process evaluation of the ‘Singapore Physical Activity and Nutrition Study’

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
3
0

Year Published

2020
2020
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
4

Relationship

1
3

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 4 publications
(3 citation statements)
references
References 41 publications
0
3
0
Order By: Relevance
“…The SPANS intervention had a low attrition rate (15%), which may have been due to its acceptability and accessibility for the Singaporean women aged 50 years and older. 24 This compared favorably with similar PA and nutrition RCTs for older adults (19% to 22%). [3][4][5][6] The GEE analyses confirmed significant improvements in behavioral and health outcomes between the intervention and control groups.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 69%
“…The SPANS intervention had a low attrition rate (15%), which may have been due to its acceptability and accessibility for the Singaporean women aged 50 years and older. 24 This compared favorably with similar PA and nutrition RCTs for older adults (19% to 22%). [3][4][5][6] The GEE analyses confirmed significant improvements in behavioral and health outcomes between the intervention and control groups.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 69%
“…Similarly, a recent health behaviour change programme used ambassadors to drive physical activity and dietary habits to achieve desired behaviour change. 47 This was possible because the ambassadors had more communication time with the participants in our study. A society rich in communication technology usage such as social media access with mobile communication devices could strengthen health message communication.…”
Section: Lessons and Limitationsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Elements of process evaluation were translated into structured questions to develop these study questionnaires. 20,22 For the next stage, a panel of experts specializing in the fields of gerontology (n=2), nutrition (n=3), and health policy (n=5) validated the instruments. Content-validity index and content-validity ratio values of both questionnaires were calculated and found acceptable: 0.93 and 0.89 for the clients' questionnaire and 0.79 and 0.88 for the providers' questionnaire, respectively.…”
Section: Design and Process-evaluation Componentsmentioning
confidence: 99%