Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Improving physical activity program adoption using integrated research-practice partnerships: an effectiveness-implementation trial

  • Original Research
  • Published:
Translational Behavioral Medicine

Abstract

Integrated research-practice partnerships (IRPPs) may improve adoption of evidence-based programs. The aim of this study is to compare adoption of an IRPP-developed physical activity (PA) program (Fit Extension, FitEx) to a typical efficacy-effectiveness-dissemination pipeline model program (Active Living Every Day, ALED). Guided by the Reach Effectiveness Adoption Implementation Maintenance (RE-AIM) framework, a randomized controlled trial assigned health educators (HEs) to FitEx (n = 18) or ALED (n = 18). Fourteen HEs adopted FitEx, while two HEs adopted ALED (χ 2 = 21.8; p < 0.05). FitEx HEs took less time to deliver (p < 0.05), stated greater intentions for continued program delivery (p < 0.05), and reached more participants (n = 1097 total; 83 % female; 70 % Caucasian; M age = 44 ± 11.8) per HE than ALED (n = 27 total; 60 % female; 50 % Caucasian; M age = 41 ± 11.3). No significant difference existed in FitEx or ALED participants’ increased PA (M increase = 9.12 ±29.09  min/day; p > 0.05). IRPP-developed programs may improve PA program adoption, implementation, and maintenance and may also result in programs that have higher reach—without reducing effectiveness.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig 1
Fig 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Office of Disease Prevention and Health Promotion. Healthy People 2020. Washington, DC. http://www.healthypeople.gov/. Accessed 1 Jul 2015.

  2. Mokdad AH, Marks JS, Stroup JF, et al. Actual causes of death in the United States, 2000. JAMA. 2004. doi:10.1001/jama.291.10.1238.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. The power of prevention. Steps to a HealthierUS: a program and policy perspective. 2003: 1–9.

  4. Estabrooks PA, Glasgow RE, Dzewaltowski DA. Physical activity promotion though primary care. JAMA. 2003; 289: 2913-2916.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report. Prevalence of regular physical activity among adults—United States, 2001 and 2005. 2007;56(46).

  6. Kahn EB, Ramsey LT, Brownson RC, Task Force on Community Preventive Services, et al. The effectiveness of interventions to increase physical activity. Am J Prev Med. 2002; 22(4S): 73-107.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Boutron I, Moher D, Altman DG, Schulz K, Ravaud P, for the CONSORT group. Methods and processes of the CONSORT group: example of an extension for trials assessing nonpharmacologic treatments. Ann Intern Med. 2008;W60-W67.

  8. Glasgow RE, Klesges LM, Dzewaltowski DA, et al. The future of health behavior change research: what is needed to improve translation of research into health promotion practice? ABM. 2004; 27: 3-13.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Estabrooks P, Dzewaltowski DA, Glasgow R, et al. School-based health promotion: issues related to translating research into practice. J Sch Health. 2002; 73: 21-28.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Bull SS, Gillette C, Glasgow R, et al. Worksite health promotion research: to what extent can we generalize the results and what is needed to translate research to practice? Health Educ and Beh. 2003; 30: 537-549.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Dzewaltowski DA, Estabrooks PA, Glasgow RE. The 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: 57-63.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Miller R, Shinn M. Learning from communities: overcoming difficulties in dissemination of prevention and promotion efforts. Am J Commun Psychol. 2005; 35: 3-4. doi:10.1007/s10464-005-3395-1.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Damschroder LJ, Aron DC, Keith RE, et al. Fostering implementation of health services research findings into practice: a consolidated framework for advancing implementation science. Imp Sci. 2009. doi:10.1186/1748-5908-4-50.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Estabrooks PA, Glasgow RE. Translating effective clinic-based physical activity interventions into practice. Am J Prev Med. 2006; 31: 45-56.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Wandersman A, Duffy J, Flaspohler P, et al. Bridging the gap between prevention research and practice: the interactive systems framework for dissemination and implementation. Am J Commun Psychol. 2008; 41(3–4): 171-181.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. National Cancer Institute of Canada 2006. Final report to the NCIC Board from the Joint Working Group on Translational Research and Knowledge Integration of the Advisory Committee on Research and the Joint Advisory Committee for Cancer Control.

  17. Pinard CA, Hart MH, Hodgkins Y, et al. Smart choices for healthy families: a pilot study for the treatment of childhood obesity in low-income families. Health Edu & Behav. 2012; 39(4): 433-445.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Hasche LK, Lenze S, Brown T, et al. Adapting collaborative depression care for public community long-term care: using research-practice partnerships. Adm Policy Ment Health. 2014; 41: 687-696. doi:10.1007/s10488-013-0519-z.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  19. Harrison MB, Graham ID. Roadmap for a participatory research–practice partnership to implement evidence. Worldviews Evid Based Nurs. 2012; 9(4): 210-220. doi:10.1111/j.1741-6787.2012.00256.x.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  20. Stetler CB, Legro MW, Wallance CM, et al. The role of formative evaluation in implementation research and the QUERI experience. J Gen Intern Med. 2006; 21: S1-S8.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  21. Stetler CB, Mittman BS, Francis J. Overview of the VA Quality Enhancement Research Initiative (QUERI) and QUERI theme articles: QUERI series. Implement Sci. 2008; 3: 8.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  22. Osher DM, Quinn MM, Poirier JM, et al. Deconstructing the pipeline: using efficacy, effectiveness, and cost-benefit data to reduce minority youth incarceration. New Dir Youth Dev. 2003; 99: 91-120.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Curran GM, Bauer M, Mittman B, et al. Effectiveness-implementation hybrid designs: combining elements of clinical effectiveness and implementation research to enhance public health impact. Med Care. 2012. doi:10.1097/MLR.0b013e3182408812.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  24. Glasgow RE, Vogt TM, Boles SM. Evaluating the public health impact of health promotion interventions: the RE-AIM framework. Am J Public Health. 1999; 89: 1322-1327.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  25. Smith-Lever Act. http://extension100years.net/en/administration/about_us/chancellors_office/extension/about-smith-lever/. Accessed 1 Jul 2015.

  26. Estabrooks PA, Harden SM, Burke SM. Group dynamics in physical activity promotion: what works? Soc Personal Psychol Compass. 2012; 6(1): 18-40.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Estabrooks PA, Bradshaw M, Dzewaltowski DA, et al. Determining the impact of Walk Kansas: applying a team-building approach to community physical activity promotion. Ann Behav Med. 2008. doi:10.1007/s12160-008-9040-0.Epub2008Jul8.

    Google Scholar 

  28. Hongu N, Block L, Sanchez SA, Day SH, Harris RB. Walk across Arizona, community-based walking program: promoting and sustaining physical activity in older adults. The Forum for Family and Consumer Issues. 2010

  29. Michie S, van Stralen MM, West R. The behaviour change wheel: a new method for characterising and designing behaviour change interventions. Implement Sci. 2011. doi:10.1186/1748-5908-6-42.Review.

    Google Scholar 

  30. Seymour RB, Hughes SL, Campbell RT, et al. Comparison of two methods of conducting the Fit and Strong! program. Arthritis Rheum. 2009. doi:10.1002/art.24517.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  31. Pazoki R, Nabipour I, Seyednezami N, et al. Effects of a community-based healthy heart program on increasing healthy women’s physical activity: a randomized controlled trial guided by community-based participatory research (CBPR). BMC Public Health. 2007. doi:10.1186/1471-2458-7-216.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  32. 2008 physical activity guidelines for Americans. Health.gov. http://www.health.gov/paguidelines/guidelines/. Accessed 1 Jul 2015.

  33. Thompson B, Denmark-Wahnefried W, Taylor G, et al. Baseline fruit and vegetable intake among adults in seven 5 a day study centers located in diverse geographic areas. J Am Diet Assoc. 1999; 99: 1241-1248.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Human Kinetics, Champaign. www.humankinetics.com. Accessed 1 Jul 2015.

  35. Dunn AL, Marcus BH, Kampert JB, et al. Comparison of lifestyle and structured interventions to increase physical activity and cardiorespiratory fitness: a randomized trial. JAMA. 1999; 281: 327-34.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Dunn AL, Andersen RE, Jakicic JM. Lifestyle physical activity interventions—history, short- and long-term effects, and recommendations. Am J Prev Med. 1998; 15: 398-412.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Wilcox S, Dowda M, Griffin SF, et al. Results of the first year of Active for Life®: translation of two evidence-based physical activity programs for older adults into community settings. Am J Public Health. 2006; 96: 1201-1206.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  38. Wilcox S, Dowda M, Leviton LC. Active for Life: final results from the translation of two physical activity programs. Am J Prev Med. 2008; 35: 340-351.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Topolski TD, LoGerfo J, Patrick DL, et al. The rapid assessment of physical activity (RAPA) among older adults. Prev Chronic Dis. 2006; 3: 1-8.

    Google Scholar 

  40. Glasgow RE, Ory MG, Klesges LM, et al. Practical and relevant measures of health behavior for primary care settings. Ann Fam Med. 2005; 3: 73-81.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  41. Bozack A, Millstein S, Garcel JM, et al. Implementation and outcomes of the New York state YMCA diabetes prevention program: a multisite community-based translation, 2010–2012. Prev Chronic Dis. 2014. doi:10.5888/pcd11.140006.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  42. Hays LM, Finch EA, Saha C, et al. Effect of self-efficacy on weight loss: a psychosocial analysis of a community-based adaptation of the diabetes prevention program lifestyle intervention. Diabetes Spectr. 2014. doi:10.2337/diaspect.27.4.270.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  43. Rogers E. Diffusion of innovations. In: Attributes of innovations and their rate of adoption. New York: Free; 2003: 219-266.

    Google Scholar 

  44. Belkora J, Edlow B, Aviv C, et al. Training community resource center and clinic personnel to prompt patients in listing questions for doctors: follow-up interviews about barriers and facilitators to the implementation of consultation planning. Implement Sci. 2008. doi:10.1186/1748-5908-3-6.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  45. Edmunds JM, Beidas RS, Kendall PC. Dissemination and implementation of evidence-based practices: training and consultation as implementation strategies. Clin Psycho. doi: 10.1111/cpsp.12031.

  46. Flay BR. Efficacy and effectiveness trials (and other phases of research) in the development of health promotion programs. Prev Med. 1986; 15: 451-474.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  47. Tibbits MK, Bumbarger BK, Kyler SJ, et al. Sustaining evidence-based interventions under real-world conditions: results from a large-scale diffusion project. Prev Sci. 2010; 11: 252-262. doi:10.1007/s11121-010-0170-9.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  48. Estabrooks PA, Smith-Ray RL, Dzewaltowski DA, Wilcox S, et al. Sustainability of evidence-based community-based physical activity programs for older adults: lessons from Active for Life. Transl Behav Med. 2011; 1(2): 208-215.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  49. Johnson SB, Harden SM, Estabooks PA. TBM; under review

  50. Klesges LM, Estabrooks PA, Dzewaltowski DA, et al. Beginning with the application in mind: designing and planning health behavior change interventions to enhance dissemination. Ann Behav Med. 2005; 29: 66–-75.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

We would like to acknowledge the health educators who provided us with these data as well as Joan Wages who led the training sessions.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Human Nutrition, Foods and Exercise, Virginia Tech, 1981 Kraft Dr, Blacksburg, VA, 24060, USA

    Samantha M. Harden PhD, Sallie Beth Johnson MPH, Fabio A. Almeida PhD, MSW & Paul A. Estabrooks PhD

  2. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Virginia Tech Carilion School of Medicine, Roanoke, VA, USA

    Samantha M. Harden PhD

  3. Fralin Translational Obesity Research Center, Blacksburg, VA, USA

    Samantha M. Harden PhD, Sallie Beth Johnson MPH, Fabio A. Almeida PhD, MSW & Paul A. Estabrooks PhD

  4. Department of Family and Community Medicine, Virginia Tech Carilion School of Medicine, Roanoke, VA, USA

    Fabio A. Almeida PhD, MSW & Paul A. Estabrooks PhD

Authors
  1. Samantha M. Harden PhD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Sallie Beth Johnson MPH
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Fabio A. Almeida PhD, MSW
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Paul A. Estabrooks PhD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Paul A. Estabrooks PhD.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declared that they have no competing interests.

Adherence to ethical principles

This study followed accepted principles of ethical and professional conduct. The study received expedited review by the Virginia Tech Institutional Review Board (no. 08-466).

Additional information

Implications

Practice: The integrated research-practice partnership approach to program development and delivery may improve the rate at which decision-makers adopt and implement evidence-based programs in a delivery system.

Policy: Infrastructure that supports the development and use of integrated research-practice partnerships may more swiftly impact public health.

Research: Partnering with representatives from the intended delivery system may allow for appropriate tailoring and improve the perceptions of evidence-based programming.

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Harden, S.M., Johnson, S.B., Almeida, F.A. et al. Improving physical activity program adoption using integrated research-practice partnerships: an effectiveness-implementation trial. Behav. Med. Pract. Policy Res. 7, 28–38 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s13142-015-0380-6

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s13142-015-0380-6

Keywords

Search

Navigation