4.1 Article

Process Evaluation of Strong Hearts, Healthy Communities: A Rural Community-Based Cardiovascular Disease Prevention Program

Journal

JOURNAL OF NUTRITION EDUCATION AND BEHAVIOR
Volume 51, Issue 2, Pages 138-149

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.jneb.2018.10.011

Keywords

cardiovascular disease; health promotion; program evaluation; rural population; women's health

Funding

  1. National Institutes of Health [R01 HL120702]
  2. National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objective: To evaluate the implementation of a community-based cardiovascular disease prevention program for rural women: Strong Hearts, Healthy Communities (SHHC). Design: Mixed-methods process evaluation. Setting/Participants: A total of 101 women from 8 rural towns were enrolled in the SHHC program; 93 were enrolled as controls. Eligible participants were aged >= 40 years, sedentary, and overweight or obese. Local health educators (n = 15) served as program leaders within each town. Outcome Measures: Reach, fidelity, dose delivered, dose received, and program satisfaction were assessed using after-class surveys, participant satisfaction surveys, interviews with program leaders, and participant focus groups. Analysis: Descriptive statistics, chi-square tests of independence, and thematic analysis were employed. Results: Intervention sites reported high levels of fidelity (82%) and dose delivered (84%). Overall reach was 2.6% and program classes were rated as effective (3.9/5). Participants were satisfied with their experience and reported benefits such as camaraderie and awareness of healthy eating and exercise strategies. Common recommendations included increasing class time and enhancing group discussion. Conclusions and Implications: Implementation was good in terms of fidelity, dose delivered, and satisfaction, although low reach. Findings from this research have informed a second round of implementation and evaluation of the SHHC program in rural communities.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.1
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available