Objective: The RE-AIM framework has been recognized as a tool to evaluate the adoption, delivery, and sustainability of an intervention, and estimate its potential public health impact. In this study four dimensions of the RE-AIM framework (adoption, implementation, effectiveness, and maintenance) were used to evaluate the WellingTONNE Challenge Toolkit, a step-by-step resource explaining how to develop, implement and disseminate a healthy lifestyle community intervention.
Design: Process evaluation.
Methods: In association with the Commonwealth Department of Health and Ageing (DHA), a self-report questionnaire was distributed to individuals from health care organizations, local councils and community organizations throughout Australia who had received and/or requested the WellingTONNE Challenge Toolkit from the DHA.
Results: The RE-AIM dimensions revealed a high adoption rate and confirmed that the toolkit was being implemented for what it was intended to be implemented for and was an effective resource for initiating, maintaining and encouraging a healthy lifestyle. Lastly, the evaluation highlighted that most participants would maintain use of the toolkit in future projects.
Conclusion: The RE-AIM framework provided valuable information concerning the uptake, implementation and usability of the WellingTONNE Challenge Toolkit, however, future research should address the behavioural outcomes associated with using the toolkit in order to provide a clearer understanding of how research can be translated into public health practice.
Dzewaltowski DA, Estabrooks PA, Glasgow REThe 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.
2.
Bauman AEUpdating the evidence that physical activity is good for health: an epidemiological review 2000-2003. J Sci Med Sport, 2004: 7(1 Suppl): 6-19.
3.
Australian Department of Health and Aged Care. National physical activity guidelines for Australians. Canberra: Department of Health and Aged Care, 1999.
4.
US Department of Health and Human Services.Physical activity and health: a report of the Surgeon General. Atlanta, GA: US Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, 1996
5.
Stewart AL, Verboncoeur CJ, McLellan BY, et al. Physical activity outcomes of CHAMPS II: a physical activity promotion program for older adults. J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci, 2001: 56(8): 465-470.
6.
Hooker SP, Seavey W., Weidmer CE, et al. The California active aging community grant program: translating science into practice to promote physical activity in older adults. Annals of Behavioral Medicine, 2005: 29(3): 155-165.
7.
Sallis JF, McKenzie, TL, Conway TL, et al. Environmental interventions for eating and physical activity: a randomized controlled trial in middle schools. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 2003: 24(3): 209-217.
8.
Eakin EG, Brown WJ, Marshall AL, Mummery K., Larsen E.Physical activity promotion in primary care: bridging the gap between research and practice. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 2004: 27(4): 297-303.
9.
Marshall AL, Leslie ER, Bauman AE, Marcus BH, Owen N.Print versus website physical activity programs: a randomized trial. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 2003: 25(2): 88-94.
10.
Glasgow RE, McKay HG, Piette JD, Reynolds KD. The RE-AIM framework for evaluating interventions: what can it tell us about approaches to chronic illness management?. Patient Education and Counseling, 2001: 44(2): 119-127.
11.
Glasgow RE, Lichtenstein E., Marcus ACWhy don’t we see more translation of health promotion research to practice? Rethinking the efficacy-to-effectiveness transition. American Journal of Public Health, 2003: 93(8): 1261-1267.
12.
Kahn EB, Ramsey LT, Brownson RC, et al. The effectiveness of interventions to increase physical activity: a systematic review. American Journal of Preventive Medicine , 2002: 22(4 Suppl): 73-107.
13.
Glasgow RETranslating research to practice: lessons learned, areas for improvement, and future directions. Diabetes Care, 2003 : 26(8): 2451-2456.
14.
Glasgow RE, Vogt TM, Boles SMEvaluating the public health impact of health promotion interventions: the RE-AIM framework. American Journal of Public Health, 1999: 89(9): 1322-1327.
15.
Dzewaltowski DA, Glasgow RE, Klesges LM, Estabrooks PA, Brock E.RE-AIM: evidence-based standards and a web resource to improve translation of research into practice. Annals of Behavioral Medicine, 2004: 28(2): 75-80.
16.
Eakin EG, Glasgow RE, Riley KMReview of primary care-based physical activity intervention studies: effectiveness and implications for practice and future research. Journal of Family Practice, 2000: 49(2): 158-168.
17.
Glasgow RE, Nelson CC, Strycker LA, King DK. Using RE-AIM metrics to evaluate diabetes self-management support interventions. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 2006: 30(1): 67-73.
18.
Baldauf A., Reisinger H.Moncrief W.C.Examining motivation to refuse in industrial mail surveys. Journal of the Market Research Society, 1999: 41: 345-353.
19.
Hager MA, Wilson S., Pollak TH, Rooney PMResponse rates for mail surveys of nonprofit organisations: A review and empirical test. Nonprof and Volun Sect Q, 2003: 32(2): 252-267.
20.
Johnson CM, Johnson, TR, Zhang, J.A user-centered framework for redesigning health care interfaces. Journal of Biomedical Informatics, 2005: 38(1): 75-87.
21.
Moody JS, Prochaska JJ, Sallis JF, et al. Viability of parks and recreation centers as sites for youth physical activity promotion. Health Promotion Practice, 2004: 5(4): 438-443.
22.
Douglas F., Torrance N., van Teijlingen E., Meloni S., Kerr A.Primary care staff’s views and experiences related to routinely advising patients about physical activity: A questionnaire survey. BMC Public Health, 2006: 6: 138.
23.
Steele R., Caperchione C.The role of local government in physical activity: Employee perceptions. Health Promotion Practice, 2005: 6(2): 214-218.
24.
King L., Hawe P., Corne S.What is local government’s capacity for partnership in promoting physical activity? A case study. Health Promotion Journal of Australia ,1999: 9(1): 39-43.
25.
Roussos ST, Fawcett SBA review of collaborative partnerships as a strategy for improving community health. Annual Review of Public Health, 2000 : 21: 369-402.
26.
Plescia M., Young S., Ritzman RLStatewide community-based health promotion: a North Carolina model to build local capacity for chronic disease prevention. Preventing Chronic Disease, 2005: 2: Spec no A10.
