Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

LIVE: Thursday 27th June 2024, 18:00-19:30 (CEST)
Join our expert panel to discover why you need to understand the drivers of non-adherence in your patients, and how you can optimize medication adherence in your clinics to drastically improve patient outcomes.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
BMC Public Health
Published in: BMC Public Health 1/2015

Open Access 01-12-2015 | Research article

Mixed method evaluation of a community-based physical activity program using the RE-AIM framework: Practical application in a real-world setting

Authors: Harriet Koorts, Fiona Gillison

Published in: BMC Public Health | Issue 1/2015

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

Communities are a pivotal setting in which to promote increases in child and adolescent physical activity behaviours. Interventions implemented in these settings require effective evaluation to facilitate translation of findings to wider settings. The aims of this paper are to i) present findings from a RE-AIM evaluation of a community-based physical activity program, and ii) review the methodological challenges faced when applying RE-AIM in practice.

Methods

A single mixed-methods case study was conducted based on a concurrent triangulation design. Five sources of data were collected via interviews, questionnaires, archival records, documentation and field notes. Evidence was triangulated within RE-AIM to assess individual and organisational-level program outcomes.

Results

Inconsistent availability of data and a lack of robust reporting challenged assessment of all five dimensions. Reach, Implementation and setting-level Adoption were less successful, Effectiveness and Maintenance at an individual and organisational level were moderately successful. Only community-level Adoption was highly successful, reflecting the key program goal to provide community-wide participation in sport and physical activity.

Conclusions

This research highlighted important methodological constraints associated with the use of RE-AIM in practice settings. Future evaluators wishing to use RE-AIM may benefit from a mixed-method triangulation approach to offset challenges with data availability and reliability.
Appendix
Available only for authorised users
Footnotes
1
Council census data recorded children’s ages based on school year groups only. This resulted in an age grouping of 6–15 years whereas the program was eligible to only those aged 7–14 years. The proportion of the eligible population reached by the program was therefore based on estimates and reach could not be indisputably quantified.
 
Literature
1.
Department of Health. Start Active, Stay Active: A report on physical activity from the four home countries' Chief Medical Officers. London: Department of Health; 2011.
2.
World Health Organization. Global recommendations on physical activity for health. World Health Organization. Switzerland: 2010.
3.
Health and Social Care Information Centre. Health Survey for England 2012. Trend tables. Health and Social Care Information Centre. United Kingdom: 2012.
4.
Dobbins M, De Corby K, Robeson P, Husson H, Tirilis D. School-based physical activity programs for promoting physical activity and fitness in children and adolescents aged 6–18. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2009.
5.
de Meester F, van Lenthe F, Spittaels H, Lien N, De Bourdeaudhuij I. Interventions for promoting physical activity among European teenagers: a systematic review. Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act. 2009;6:82.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
6.
van Sluijs E, McMinn A, Griffin S. Effectiveness of interventions to promote physical activity in children and adolescents: systematic review of controlled trials. BMJ. 2007;335(7622):703.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
7.
Dzewaltowski D, Estabrooks P, Klesges L, Bull S, Glasgow R. Behavior change intervention research in community settings: how generalizable are the results? Health Promot Int. 2004;19(2):235–45.CrossRefPubMed
8.
Glasgow R, Klesges L, Dzewaltowski D, Bull S, Estabrooks P. The future of health behavior change research: what is needed to improve translation of research into health promotion practice? Ann Behav Med. 2004;27(1):3–12.CrossRefPubMed
9.
Antikainen L, Ellis R. A RE-AIM Evaluation of Theory-Based Physical Activity Interventions. J Sport Exerc Psychol. 2011;33:198–214.CrossRefPubMed
10.
Owen N, Glanz K, Sallis JF, Kelder SH. Evidence-Based Approaches to Dissemination and Diffusion of Physical Activity Interventions. Am J Prev Med. 2006;31(4, Supplement):35–44.CrossRef
11.
Glasgow R, Vogt T, Boles S. Evaluating the public health impact of health promotion interventions: the RE-AIM framework. Am J Public Health. 1999;89(9):1322–7.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
12.
Austin G, Bell T, Caperchione C, Mummery W. Translating Research to Practice: Using the RE-AIM Framework to Examine an Evidence-Based Physical Activity Intervention in Primary School Settings. Health Promot Pract. 2011;12:932–41.CrossRefPubMed
13.
Caperchione CM, Duncan M, Kolt GS, Vandelanotte C, Rosenkranz RR, Maeder A, et al. Examining an Australian physical activity and nutrition intervention using RE-AIM. Health Promot Int. 2015 [Epub ahead of print].
14.
Van Acker R, De Bourdeaudhuij I, De Cocker K, Klesges L, Cardon G. The impact of disseminating the whole-community project ‘10,000 Steps’: a RE-AIM analysis. BMC Public Health. 2011;11:3.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
15.
Bopp M, Wilcox S, Laken M, Hooker S, Saunders R, Parra-Medina D, et al. Using the RE-AIM framework to evaluate a physical activity intervention in churches. Prev Chronic Dis. 2007;4(4).
16.
Klesges L, Estabrooks P, Dzewaltowski D, Bull S, Glasgow R. Beginning with the application in mind: designing and planning health behavior change interventions to enhance dissemination. Ann Behav Med. 2005;29(Suppl):66–75.CrossRefPubMed
17.
NICE. Behaviour change: The principles for effective interventions. 2007.
18.
Weightman A, Ellis S, Cullum A, Sander L, Turley R. Grading evidence and recommendations for public health interventions: developing and piloting a framework. 2005.
19.
Creswell J. Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative and Mixed Methods Approaches. 2nd ed. London: Sage; 2003.
20.
Denzin N, Lincoln Y. The Sage Handbook of Qualitative Research. 3rd ed. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications Inc; 2005.
21.
Greene J. Mixed Methods in Social Inquiry. San Francisco: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. 2007.
22.
Yin R. Case study research: Design and Methods. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications, Inc. 2003.
23.
Greene J, Benjamic I, Goodyear I. The merits of mixing methods in evaluation. Evaluation. 2001;7(1):25–44.CrossRef
24.
Sallis J, Owen N. Ecological models. In: Glanz K, Lewis FM, Rimer BK, editors. Health behaviour and health education: Theory, research and practice. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass; 1997. p. 403–24.
25.
McLeroy K, Bibeau D, Steckler A, Glanz K. An ecological perspective on health promotion programs. Health Educ Q. 1988;15(4):351–77.CrossRefPubMed
26.
Ritchie J, Spencer L. Qualitative data analysis for applied policy research. In: Bryman A, Burgess RG, editors. Analysing qualitative data. London: Routledge; 1994. p. 173–94.CrossRef
27.
Ritchie J, Lewis J. Qualitative Research Practice: A guide for Social Science Students and Researchers. Great Britain: Sage Publications Inc; 2003.
28.
Lincoln Y, Guba E. Naturalistic Inquiry. Newbury Park: Sage Publications Inc; 1985.
29.
Miles M, Huberman A. Qualitative Data Analysis: An Expanded Sourcebook. 2nd ed. Inc: Sage Publications; 1994.
30.
Burke SM, Shapiro S, Petrella RJ, Irwin J, Jackman M, Pearson E, et al. Using the RE-AIM framework to evaluate a community-based summer camp for children with obesity: a prospective feasibility study. BMC Obes. 2015;2:21.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
31.
de Meij J, Chinapaw M, Kremers S, Van der Wal M, Jurg M, Van Mechelen W. Promoting physical activity in children: The stepwise development of the primary school-based JUMP-in intervention applying the RE-AIM evaluation framework. Br J Sports Med. 2008;44(12):879–87.CrossRefPubMed
32.
McGoey T, Root Z, Bruner MW, Law B. Evaluation of physical activity interventions in youth via the Reach, Efficacy/Effectiveness, Adoption, Implementation, and Maintenance (RE-AIM) framework: A systematic review of randomised and non-randomised trials. Prev Med. 2015;76:58–67.CrossRefPubMed
33.
Glasgow R, Lichtenstein E, Marcus A. Why don’t we see more translation of health promotion research to practice? Rethinking the efficacy-to-effectiveness transition. Am J Public Health. 2003;93(8):1261–7.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
34.
McKenzie R, Naccarella L, Stewart A, Thompson C. Targeting what matters in health promotion evaluation. Using the RE-AIM approach to identify success in real-world settings. Eval J Australasia. 2007;7(1):19–26.
35.
Dzewaltowski D, Estabrooks P, Glasgow R. The future of physical activity behavior change research: what is needed to improve translation of research into health promotion practice? Exerc Sport Sci Rev. 2004;32(2):57–63.CrossRefPubMed
36.
Kessler RS, Purcell EP, Glasgow RE, Klesges LM, Benkeser RM, Peek CJ. What Does It Mean to ”Employ” the RE-AIM Model? Eval Health Prof. 2012;36(1):67-72.
37.
Brownson RC, Brennan LK, Evenson KR, Leviton LC. Lessons from a mixed-methods approach to evaluating Active Living by Design. Am J Prev Med. 2012;43(5 Suppl 4):S271–80.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
38.
39.
Jolley G. Evaluating complex community-based health promotion: addressing the challenges. Eval Program Plann. 2014;45:71–81.CrossRefPubMed
40.
Klesges L, Dzewaltowski D, Glasgow R. Review of external validity reporting in childhood obesity prevention research. Am J Prev Med. 2008;34(3):216–23.CrossRefPubMed
41.
de Meij J, Chinapaw M, van Stralen M, van der Wal M, van Dieren L, van Mechelen W. Effectiveness of JUMP-in, a Dutch primary school-based community intervention aimed at the promotion of physical activity. Br J Sports Med. 2010;45:1052–7.CrossRefPubMed
42.
Rychetnik L, Frommer M, Hawe P, Shiell A. Criteria for evaluating evidence on public health interventions. J Epidemiol Community Health. 2002;56:119–27.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
43.
Yin R. Case study research: Design and Methods. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications, Inc; 2003.
44.
Merriam S. Qualitative Research: A Guide to Design and Implementation. San Francisco: Josey-Bass; 2009.
45.
Creswell J, Plano Clark V. Designing and Conducting Mixed Methods Research. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications, Inc; 2007.
46.
Metadata
Title
Mixed method evaluation of a community-based physical activity program using the RE-AIM framework: Practical application in a real-world setting
Authors
Harriet Koorts
Fiona Gillison
Publication date
01-12-2015
Publisher
BioMed Central
Published in
BMC Public Health / Issue 1/2015
Electronic ISSN: 1471-2458
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-015-2466-y

Other articles of this Issue 1/2015

BMC Public Health 1/2015 Go to the issue

Research article

Community-based interventions in hypertensive patients: a comparison of three health education strategies

Research article

Crime and subjective well-being in the countries of the former Soviet Union

Research article

Spatiotemporal variation in diabetes mortality in China: multilevel evidence from 2006 and 2012

Research article

Addressing issues of vaccination literacy and psychological empowerment in the measles-mumps-rubella (MMR) vaccination decision-making: a qualitative study

Research article

Installation of a stationary high desk in the workplace: effect of a 6-week intervention on physical activity

Study protocol

A national school-based health lifestyles interventions among Chinese children and adolescents against obesity: rationale, design and methodology of a randomized controlled trial in China