1
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      A RE-AIM evaluation of Healthy Together: a family-centred program to support children’s healthy weights

      research-article

      Read this article at

          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Background

          Healthy Together (HT) is family-centered program to support healthy eating and physical activity designed for implementation in community organizations serving families who may be experiencing vulnerabilities (e.g., related to low income, isolation, ethnicity, immigrant/refugee status, and/or Indigenous background). The purpose of this study was to conduct an evaluation of HT in a real-world, scale-up phase using the RE-AIM framework.

          Methods

          Using a cross-sectional, non-comparative design, a community-based program evaluation was conducted in 29 organizations implementing HT as part of their core service programs. Data were collected using questionnaires with program participants and facilitators, and interviews with directors of participating organizations. Quantitative data were analyzed using descriptive statistics and qualitative data were content analyzed.

          Results

          With regards to Reach, over 3400 caregivers, children and youth attended community programming that offered HT. Among those attending on the scheduled day for the evaluation, 663 completed the questionnaires. The majority of caregiver respondents ( n = 431) were female (92%) and attended with children 0–6 years. Respondents also included children 4–6 years ( n = 142) and 7–12 years ( n = 65), and youth 13–18 years ( n = 25). Effectiveness was demonstrated in reported improvements in physical activity, healthy eating, and strengthened social connections. HT was also widely supported by participants and facilitators. Adoption was influenced by the desire to enrich core service programs for families, HT’s fit within existing programs, organizational commitment, and funding support. Implementation experiences indicated that fidelity to the HT program was generally maintained, with some setting specific adaptations. Maintenance of HT was influenced by financial and non-financial resources within community organizations. Most organizations also introduced new initiatives to extend support for healthy eating and physical activity.

          Conclusion

          Our findings indicate improvements in healthy eating and physical activity, and social connections among program participants, as well as efforts by community organizations to create environments to support healthy weights. HT was successfully delivered in “real-world” community settings across multiple contexts and with families with diverse backgrounds. This along with strategies to support program implementation and sustainability indicate that HT provides a model for other public health interventions to promote family health and wellbeing.

          Trial registration

          ClincialTrials.gov NCT03550248. Registered May 25, 2018

          Supplementary Information

          S upplementary information accompanies this paper at 10.1186/s12889-020-09737-8.

          Related collections

          Most cited references21

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          What's in a name? Qualitative description revisited.

          "Whatever Happened to Qualitative Description?" (Sandelowski, 2000) was written to critique the prevailing tendency in qualitative health research to claim the use of methods that were not actually used and to clarify a methodological approach rarely identified as a distinctive method. The article has generated several misconceptions, most notably that qualitative description requires no interpretation of data. At the root of these misconceptions is the persistent challenge of defining qualitative research methods. Qualitative description is a "distributed residual category" (Bowker & Star, 2000). Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press) in the classification of these methods. Its value lies not only in the knowledge its use can produce, but also as a vehicle for presenting and treating research methods as living entities that resist simple classification.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: not found
            • Article: not found

            Evaluating the public health impact of health promotion interventions: the RE-AIM framework.

              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: found
              Is Open Access

              The FRAME: an expanded framework for reporting adaptations and modifications to evidence-based interventions

              Background This paper describes the process and results of a refinement of a framework to characterize modifications to interventions. The original version did not fully capture several aspects of modification and adaptation that may be important to document and report. Additionally, the earlier framework did not include a way to differentiate cultural adaptation from adaptations made for other reasons. Reporting additional elements will allow for a more precise understanding of modifications, the process of modifying or adapting, and the relationship between different forms of modification and subsequent health and implementation outcomes. Discussion We employed a multifaceted approach to develop the updated FRAME involving coding documents identified through a literature review, rapid coding of qualitative interviews, and a refinement process informed by multiple stakeholders. The updated FRAME expands upon Stirman et al.’s original framework by adding components of modification to report: (1) when and how in the implementation process the modification was made, (2) whether the modification was planned/proactive (i.e., an adaptation) or unplanned/reactive, (3) who determined that the modification should be made, (4) what is modified, (5) at what level of delivery the modification is made, (6) type or nature of context or content-level modifications, (7) the extent to which the modification is fidelity-consistent, and (8) the reasons for the modification, including (a) the intent or goal of the modification (e.g., to reduce costs) and (b) contextual factors that influenced the decision. Methods of using the framework to assess modifications are outlined, along with their strengths and weaknesses, and considerations for research to validate these measurement strategies. Conclusion The updated FRAME includes consideration of when and how modifications occurred, whether it was planned or unplanned, relationship to fidelity, and reasons and goals for modification. This tool that can be used to support research on the timing, nature, goals and reasons for, and impact of modifications to evidence-based interventions.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                Joan.bottorff@ubc.ca
                Anne.huisken@ubc.ca
                Michele.Hopkins@thebridgeservices.ca
                Catherine.Nesmith@thebridgeservices.ca
                Journal
                BMC Public Health
                BMC Public Health
                BMC Public Health
                BioMed Central (London )
                1471-2458
                23 November 2020
                23 November 2020
                2020
                : 20
                : 1754
                Affiliations
                [1 ]GRID grid.17091.3e, ISNI 0000 0001 2288 9830, Institute for Healthy Living and Chronic Disease Prevention, University of British Columbia, ; 1147 Research Road, Art 223, Kelowna, BC V1V 1V7 Canada
                [2 ]The Bridge Youth and Family Services, Kelowna, BC Canada
                Author information
                http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9724-5351
                Article
                9737
                10.1186/s12889-020-09737-8
                7681950
                33225915
                68384372-04db-45b2-8589-6da44001c7fe
                © The Author(s) 2020

                Open AccessThis article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver ( http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

                History
                : 1 April 2020
                : 21 October 2020
                Funding
                Funded by: Public Health Agency of Canada
                Award ID: 1415-HQ-000818
                Categories
                Research Article
                Custom metadata
                © The Author(s) 2020

                Public health
                family health,healthy lifestyles,pediatric obesity,obesity prevention,healthy weights,health promotion,health behavior,family-focused intervention,parenting,program evaluation

                Comments

                Comment on this article