4.5 Article

Rationale, design and methods for process evaluation in the HEALTHY study

Journal

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF OBESITY
Volume 33, Issue -, Pages S60-S67

Publisher

SPRINGERNATURE
DOI: 10.1038/ijo.2009.118

Keywords

school-based; process evaluation; adolescent; diabetes; diet; physical activity

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The HEALTHY study was a multi-site randomized trial designed to determine whether a 3-year school-based intervention targeting nutrition and physical activity behaviors could effectively reduce risk factors associated with type 2 diabetes in middle school children. Pilot and formative studies were conducted to inform the development of the intervention components and the process evaluation methods for the main trial. During the main trial, both qualitative and quantitative assessments monitored the fidelity of the intervention and motivated modifications to improve intervention delivery. Structured observations of physical education classes, total school food environments, classroom-based educational modules, and communications and promotional campaigns provided verification that the intervention was delivered as intended. Interviews and focus groups yielded a multidimensional assessment of how the intervention was delivered and received, as well as identifying the barriers to and facilitators of the intervention across and within participating schools. Interim summaries of process evaluation data were presented to the study group as a means of ensuring standardization and quality of the intervention across the seven participating centers. Process evaluation methods and procedures documented the fidelity with which the HEALTHY study was implemented across 21 intervention schools and identified ways in which the intervention delivery might be enhanced throughout the study. International Journal of Obesity (2009) 33, S60-S67; doi:10.1038/ijo.2009.118

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available