"Replanning" a Statewide Walking Program Through the Iterative Use of the Reach, Effectiveness, Adoption, Implementation, and Maintenance Framework

A natural experiment to determine if FitEx works: Impact of a statewide walking program

The National Cooperative Extension System offers walking programs, but impacts are underreported. One program offered in two state systems is FitEx, an 8-week, group-based behavior change intervention. The purpose of this work was to evaluate FitEx through the RE-AIM (reach, effect, adoption, implementation, maintenance) Framework, with a primary focus on reach and effectiveness (individual-level dimensions). Through a pragmatic, natural experiment, the impact of FitEx was assessed from 2015 to 2020. Reach was operationalized as the number and characteristics of eligible community members who participated. Effectiveness was operationalized as changes in physical activity levels. From 2015 to 2020, there were 1995 FitEx participants (274 ± 233 participants per year) who were 45.22 ± 14.13 years of age, predominantly female (83%) and White (78%). At the start of the program, 33% met physical activity guidelines and during the program 58% met guidelines (X2(1, 1648) = 1.6; P < .0). The reach and effectiveness of FitEx are comparable to-and in some cases, greater than-similar community-based walking programs. FitEx consistently reached middle-aged insufficiently active adults. Future work is needed to reach a more diverse population, establish objectively measured impacts, and establish a process to scale FitEx across the nation.

Adaptations to a statewide walking program: Use of iterative feedback cycles between research and delivery systems improves fit for over 10 years

FitEx is an 8-week, group-based physical activity and fruit and vegetable consumption program co-created and implemented with the Cooperative Extension System. Effectiveness and delivery personnel perceptions of the program are promising; however, ongoing adaptations are required to continuously meet shifting needs of both researchers and delivery systems. We applied the APDER iterative cycles of implementation over 15 years to understand dynamic and ongoing adaptations as well as implications for FitEx sustainability. Each year, an IRPP between delivery (FitEx deliverers) and research (FitEx developers) systems shared feedback on program core elements and strategies for adaptation through regular team meetings, emails, and evaluations. While the core elements (delivering to groups, goal setting, feedback, and self-monitoring) of FitEx remained consistent, changes were made to address logistical factors, emergent research questions, and technological advancements. For example, program deliverers suggested decreasing training time and making program content available on demand rather than through traditional in-person training. Using APDER with a long-standing IRPP allowed the delivery system to provide feedback to program developers to co-create ongoing adaptations and data-driven decisions. Future work in response to shifting needs includes Fitbit integration and technological updates to the usability of the FitEx platform. Our aim is to report the 15+ years of applying the Assess, Plan, Do, Evaluate, Report (APDER) process with an integrated research-practice partnership (IRPP) for co-creation of ongoing adaptations of FitEx and to share methods for capturing relevant data for decision-making to integrate health promotion programs in community settings.

Healthy eating and active living policy, systems, and environmental changes in rural Louisiana: a contextual inquiry to inform implementation strategies

BACKGROUND

Healthy eating and active living policy, systems, and environmental (PSE) changes are implemented across the United States through Cooperative Extension. However, translating multisector PSE changes to practice in community settings is challenging and there is a lack of knowledge about barriers and facilitators to PSE changes among state Extension systems using standardized frameworks. Therefore, a research-to-practice partnership effort aimed to identify Louisiana Cooperative Extension Service Family and Consumer Science (LFCS) practitioners' barriers and facilitators to implementing PSE changes in rural Louisiana communities.

METHODS

A qualitative approach using the 2022 Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (2022 CFIR) was used. Focus group discussions were conducted at five LFCS regional trainings between February and May 2022. All LFCS practitioners with any level of experience implementing healthy eating and active living PSE changes were eligible to participate, with emphasis on understanding efforts within more rural communities. Focus group discussions were audio-recorded and transcribed verbatim. Researchers analyzed qualitative data using the constant comparison method and 2022 CFIR domains and constructs including Inner Setting (LFCS organization), Outer Setting (rural Louisiana communities), Innovation (PSE changes), and Individuals (PSE change implementation actors/partners).

RESULTS

Across the five regions, LFCS practitioners (n = 40) described more barriers (n = 210) than facilitators (n = 100); findings were often coded with multiple 2022 CFIR domains. Reported Inner Setting barriers were lack of formal or informal information sharing and lack of access to knowledge and information. Outer Setting barriers included sustaining and initiating community partnerships and local environmental or political conditions. Individual barriers included a lack of time and expertise, and Innovation barriers included the complex nature of rural PSE changes. Facilitators were mentioned at multiple levels and included community partner buy-in and practitioners' motivation to implement PSE changes.

CONCLUSIONS

Implementation strategies are needed to build on organizational strengths and to overcome multi-level barriers to PSE change implementation among LFCS practitioners. The results from the in-depth contextual inquiry used could serve as a guide for future pragmatic assessment efforts among other state Extension systems or as a model for identifying barriers and facilitators and associated implementation strategies among other public health systems in the U.S. and abroad.

Using implementation strategies in community settings: an introduction to the Expert Recommendations for Implementing Change (ERIC) compilation and future directions

In this commentary, we introduce public health practitioners and researchers to implementation science through an established compilation of implementation strategies. We provide terminology and examples for community settings so public health practitioners and researchers can use implementation strategies and document efforts using standard terminology. We also discuss the need for future work to determine the extent to which these implementation strategies work and are most useful in community settings, and ultimately, how health behaviors are impacted. We intend this commentary to serve as a dissemination strategy for implementation strategies and to contribute to knowledge in the growing field of implementation science in community settings.

Intervention Characteristics Considered in Health Educators' Adoption Decision-Making Process

It is well known that perceptions of intervention characteristics (e.g., cost, source, evidence strength and quality) are a critical link from dissemination to implementation. What is less known is the process by which researchers understand the characteristics most valued by key intermediaries (i.e., real-world decision-makers), particularly in the federal system of Cooperative Extension. In Extension, university-based specialists are available to assist county-based agents in program selection, delivery, and evaluation. For this work, a sequential explanatory mixed-methods design was used to conduct surveys and semi-structured interviews, informed by the Diffusion of Innovations theory and Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research. Educators and specialists were recruited across 47 states to identify characteristics of health promotion interventions that facilitate the adoption decision-making process. Analysis of intervention attribute importance survey data was conducted through a one-way ANOVA with Bonferroni post hoc test to determine individual variable differences between responses. Interviews underwent a conventional content analysis. In total, 121 educators and 47 specialists from 33 states completed the survey. Eighteen educators and 10 specialists completed interviews. Educators and specialists valued components such as the community need for the intervention, and potential reach compared with other components including previous delivery settings and external funding of the intervention (p < .05). Qualitative data indicated divergence between educators and specialists; educators valued understanding the intervention cost (time and training) and specialists valued the evidence base and external funding available. Intervention developers should communicate information valued by different stakeholders to improve the adoption of evidence-based interventions.