Skip to main content

Advertisement

Springer Nature is making SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19 research free. View research | View latest news | Sign up for updates

Table 2 Meta-evaluation of HeLP-her Rural using criteria developed by RE-AIM

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

Reach
 A. Participant exclusion criteria (% excluded) Based on predefined exclusion criteria, less than 12% of the participants (n = 95) were excluded post screening (Fig. 1).
 B. Percentage who participate We recruited 649 women into the HeLP-her program or ~10% n of the potential target population.
 C. Participants characteristics versus nonparticipants The women involved were representative of the broader Australian regional population (income and education).
 D. Qualitative methods We qualitatively explored program reach (Fig. 2).
Scoring: “Fully Developed Use”
1. (B) and (C) and at least one other item (A or D)
=Fully Developed Use (A + B + C + D): total of (4/4)
Efficacy/effectiveness
 A. Primary outcome measures At 1-year, the mean weight change in controls was +0.44 kg and in intervention groups was −0.48 kg, a between group difference of −0.92 kg (95% CI −1.67 to −0.16).
 B. Measure of broader outcomes A broad range of outcomes are described elsewhere (food intake, physical activity, self-efficacy, quality of life)
 C. Robustness across sub-groups The intervention showed equally efficacy across various age, BMI, income, and education sub-groups.
 D. Attrition (%) The study retention was 76% at 1 year (Fig. 1).
 E. Qualitative methods Program effectiveness was explored qualitatively.
Scoring: Fully Developed Use
1. Has (A), (B), (C), and (D)
=Fully Developed Use (A + B + C + D + E): total of 5/5 “Yes”
Adoption (setting level)
 A. Setting exclusions (% or reasons) Yes, one control town was excluded due to difficultly with participant recruitment. This was because recruitment was conducted during peak farming times “harvesting” (Fig. 1).
 B. Percentage of settings approached that participated We contacted 311 local stakeholders and 95% (n = 311) agreed to partner with the HeLP-her program, assisting implementation (Table 3).
 C. Characteristics of settings participating versus nonparticipation Not explored. However, township selection was based on randomization techniques.
 D. Use of qualitative methods Semi-structured stakeholder interviews were conducted.
Scoring: “Fully Developed Use”—adoption setting
1. Must have (B) and (C) and at least one other item (A or D)
=Partially Developed (A + B + D + E): total score of 4/5
Adoption-staff level—not applicable
Scoring: “Fully Developed Use”—adoption-researchers N/A
Implementation
 A. Percentage of full delivery or full calls Comprehensive process evaluation results revealed strong implementation fidelity and high dose delivered.
 A. Program adaptions Implementation was standardized across communities as per study protocol with minor adaptations reported previously.
 B. Cost of intervention Comprehensive economic evaluation is underway.
 C. Consistency of researchers, time, and setting Comprehensive process evaluation indicated implementation consistency.
 D. Qualitative methods applied Program implementation was explored at the community and organizational level with high program acceptability
Scoring: “Fully Developed Use”—implementation:
1. Have (A), (C), and (D) plus at least one more item (B or E)
Fully Developed Use = (A + B + C + D + E): total of 5/5
Maintenance—individual
 A. Primary outcome after final intervention As above, anthropometric data was collected at baseline and 12 and 24 months with results pending.
 B. Measure of broader outcomes, multiple criteria at follow-up Data analysis collected at 0 and 12 months with food intake, physical activity, self-efficacy and self-management. These outcomes measures will be again explored at 24 months.
 C. Robustness data—sub-group effects over the long term 24-month data analysis planned with results pending.
 D. Attrition (%) 24-month data analysis planned with results pending.
Scoring: “Fully Developed Use”—maintenance—individual: has (A), (B), (C), and (D) Fully Developed Use = (A) + (B) + (C) + (D): total of 4/4
Maintenance—setting
 A. Program continuation 6 months post study completion The HeLP-her program has been endorsed by the Victoria local government preventative health taskforce
 B. How program was adapted N/A
 C. Discussion of alignment to organization mission Exploration undertaken with stakeholders, highlighting that prevention orientated program aligns with local organizational values.
 D. Use of qualitative methods. Stakeholder interviews conducted exploring potential for program continuation and “scale-up”.
Scoring: “fully developed use”—maintenance-setting
1. Has (A) and at least 1 more item (B, C, or D)
Fully Developed Use = (A) + (C) + (D) = 3/3
Entire RE-AIM model scoring
 Reach Fully Developed Use = (A + B + C + D): total of 4/4 “Yes”
 Effectiveness Fully Developed Use = (A + B + C + D + E): total of 5/5 “Yes”
 Adoption Partial Developed (A + B + D + E): total of 4/5 “Yes”
 Implementation Fully Developed Use = (A + B + C + D + E): total of 5/5 “Yes”
 Maintenance: individual Fully Developed Use = (A) + (B) + (C) + (D): total of 4/4 “Yes”
 Maintenance: setting: Fully Developed Use = (A) + (C) + (D): total of 3/3 “Yes”
Total score: 25/26 = 96% across all RE-AIM dimensions