Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The StrongWomen–Healthy Hearts program in Pennsylvania: RE-AIM analysis

  • Original Research
  • Published:
Translational Behavioral Medicine

Abstract

Dissemination of evidence-based programs is needed to reduce CVD risk among midlife and older women. The aim of this study is to examine the public health impact of StrongWomen–Healthy Hearts in Pennsylvania using the RE-AIM framework. Reach, adoption, implementation, and maintenance were assessed using qualitative and quantitative measures; effectiveness was assessed using a pretest-posttest within-participants design. Reach into the target population was 5 in 100,000. Compared to the target population, a greater percentage of participants were white, married, middle-class, and had a graduate degree. Effectiveness was demonstrated (weight loss −2.0 kg, p < 0.001). Adoption among trained leaders was high (83.3 %), as was fidelity in implementation (average score 9.3 of 10). No leaders maintained the program. To increase impact of the StrongWomen–Healthy Hearts Program, it will be important to lower the costs and modify the recruitment and training strategies to better reach low-income and minority women. Such strategies may also improve program maintenance.

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

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Go AS, Mozaffarian D, Roger VL, et al. Heart disease and stroke statistics–2013 update: a report from the American Heart Association. Circulation. 2012; 127(1): e6-e245.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Mozaffarian D, Fried L, Burke G, Fitzpatrick A, Siscovick D. Lifestyles of older adults: can we influence cardiovascular risk in older adults? Am J Geriatr Cardiol. 2004; 13(3): 153-160.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Folta S, Lichtenstein A, Seguin R, Goldberg J, Nelson M. The StrongWomen – Healthy Hearts Program: reducing cardiovascular disease risk factors in rural sedentary, overweight, and obese midlife and older women. Am J Public Health. 2009; 99(7): 1271-1277.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Glasgow R, Vogt T, Boles S. Evaluating the public health impact of health promotion interventions: The RE-AIM framework. Am J Public Health. 1999; 89(9): 1322-1327.

    Article  PubMed Central  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Gaglio B, Shoup JA, Glasgow RE. The RE-AIM framework: a systematic review of use over time. Am J Public Health. 2013; 103(6): e38-46.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Kessler R, Purcell E, Glasgow R, Klesges L, Benkeser R, Peek C. What does it mean to “employ” the RE-AIM model? Eval Health Prof. 2013; 36(1): 44-66.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Seguin R, Economos C, Hyatt R, Palombo R, Reed P, Nelson M. Design and national dissemination of the StrongWomen community strength training program. Prev Chronic Dis. (2008): 5(1):http://www.cdc.gov/pcd/issues/2008/jan/2006_0165.htm.

  8. U.S. Census Bureau. State and County QuickFacts. Data derived from Population Estimates, 2000 Census of Population and Housing, 1990 Census of Population and Housing, Small Area Income and Poverty Estimates, County Business Patterns, 1997 Economic Census, Minority- and Women-Owned Business, Building Permits, Consolidated Federal Funds Report, Census of Governments. 2006; http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/25/2521990.html.

  9. Thomas S, Reading J, Shephard R. Revision of the Physical Activity Readiness Questionnaire (PAR-Q). Can J Sport Sci. 1992; 17(4): 338-345.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Roger V, Go A, Lloyd-Jones D, et al. Heart disease and stroke statistics--2012 update: a report from the American Heart Association. Circulation. 2012;125(1): e2-e220.

  11. Folta S, Goldberg J, Lichtenstein A, Seguin R, Reed P, Nelson M. Factors related to cardiovascular risk reduction in midlife and older women: a qualitative study. Prev Chronic Dis. (2008): 5(1):http://www.cdc.gov/pcd/issues/2008/jan/2006_0156.htm.

  12. U.S. Census Bureau. American Factfinder (Census 2010). http://www.census.gov/.

  13. Miles M, Huberman A. Qualitative Data Analysis. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications; 1994.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Thompson F, Kipnis V, Subar A, et al. Evaluation of 2 brief instruments and a food-frequency questionnaire to estimate daily number of servings of fruit and vegetables. Am J Clin Nutr. 2000; 71(6): 1503-1510.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Craig C, Marshall A, Sjostrom M, et al. International Physical Activity Questionnaire: 12-country reliability and validity. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2003; 35(8): 1381-1395.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Tehard B, Saris W, Astrup A, et al. Comparison of two physical activity questionnaires in obese subjects: The NUGENOB study. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2005; 37(9): 1535-1541.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Wolin K, Heil D, Askew S, Matthews C, Bennett G. Validation of the International Physical Activity Questionnaire-short among blacks. J Phys Act Health. 2008; 5(5): 746-760.

    PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. National Cancer Institute. Scoring the All-Day Screener. http://riskfactor.cancer.gov/diet/screeners/fruitveg/scoring/allday.html.

  19. International Physical Activity Questionnaire. Guidelines for Data Processing and Analysis of the International Physical Activity Questionnaire (IPAQ). http://www.ipaq.ki.se/scoring.pdf.

  20. Ainsworth BE, Haskell WL, Herrmann SD, et al. 2011 Compendium of Physical Activities: a second update of codes and MET values. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2011; 43(8): 1575-1581.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Allicock M, Campbell MK, Valle CG, Carr C, Resnicow K, Gizlice Z. Evaluating the dissemination of body & soul, an evidence-based fruit and vegetable intake intervention: challenges for dissemination and implementation research. J Nutr Educ Behav. 2012; 44(6): 530-538.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Aittasalo M, Rinne M, Pasanen M, Kukkonen-Harjula K, Vasankari T. Promoting walking among office employees - evaluation of a randomized controlled intervention with pedometers and e-mail messages. BMC Public Health. 2012; 12: 403.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Harvey JR, Ogden DE Obesity treatment in disadvantaged population groups: Where do we stand and what can we do? Prev Med. May 27 (2014).

  24. Neter J, Stam B, Kok F, Grobbee D, Geleijnse J. Influence of weight reduction on blood pressure: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Hypertension. 2003; 42(5): 878-884.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Hamman R, Wing R, Edelstein S, et al. Effect of weight loss with lifestyle intervention on risk of diabetes. Diabetes Care. 2006; 29(9): 2102-2107.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Mozaffarian D, Hao T, Rimm EB, Willett WC, Hu FB. Changes in diet and lifestyle and long-term weight gain in women and men. N Engl J Med. 2011; 364(25): 2392-2404.

    Article  PubMed Central  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Farris R, Will J, Khavjou M, Finkelstein E. Beyond effectiveness: Evaluating the public health impact of the WISEWOMAN Program. Am J Public Health. 2007; 97(4): 641-647.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Toobert DJ, Glasgow RE, Strycker LA, Barrera M Jr, King DK. Adapting and RE-AIMing a heart disease prevention program for older women with diabetes. Transl Behav Med. 2012; 2(2): 180-187.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

This study was funded by grant 1R18DP002144 from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, Georgia. The funder played no role in the design, conduct, or analysis of the study, nor in the interpretation and reporting of the study findings. The researchers were independent from the funder. All authors had full access to study data and can take responsibility for the integrity of the data and accuracy of the data analysis.

The authors gratefully acknowledge the StrongWomen–Healthy Hearts program leaders and participants for their participation in this research. They also thank Susan Koch-Weser, ScD and Margie Skeer, ScD, MPH, MSW for their thoughtful review of the manuscript prior to submission.

Conflict of interest

All authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest.

Adherence to ethical principles

Study procedures were reviewed and approved by the institutional review boards at Pennsylvania State University and Tufts University. This study was conducted according to the guidelines laid down in the Declaration of Helsinki. All procedures, including the informed consent process, were conducted in accordance with the ethical standards of the approving institutional review boards and with the Helsinki Declaration.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. John Hancock Research Center on Physical Activity, Nutrition, and Obesity Prevention, Friedman School of Nutrition Science and Policy, Tufts University, Medford, MA, USA

    Sara C Folta PhD,, Jeanne P Goldberg PhD, RD, & Miriam E Nelson PhD,

  2. Jean Mayer USDA Human Nutrition Research Center on Aging, Boston, MA, USA

    Alice H Lichtenstein DSc,

  3. Division of Nutritional Sciences, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY, USA

    Rebecca A Seguin PhD,

  4. Penn State Cooperative Extension, University Park, PA, USA

    Marilyn A Corbin PhD, & Nancy Wiker MEd,

  5. Chester County Economic Development Council, Exton, PA, USA

    Jodi Gauker MS,

  6. Department of Public Health and Community Medicine, School of Medicine, Tufts University, Medford, MA, USA

    Kenneth Chui PhD,

Authors
  1. Sara C Folta PhD,
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Alice H Lichtenstein DSc,
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Rebecca A Seguin PhD,
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Jeanne P Goldberg PhD, RD,
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Marilyn A Corbin PhD,
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Nancy Wiker MEd,
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Jodi Gauker MS,
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Kenneth Chui PhD,
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. Miriam E Nelson PhD,
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Sara C Folta PhD,.

Additional information

Implications

Practice: Even when a program is a good fit with an organization’s mission and current activities, time and cost must be carefully considered so that the an organization’s ability to maintain it over time is not hindered.

Research: Quantitative and qualitative methods are essential to RE-AIM evaluation, with both providing key information necessary to direct changes to enhance future dissemination.

Policy: Class costs and accessibility must be deliberately considered to help ensure that underserved women are able to participate, so that programming serves to reduce and not enhance existing health disparities.

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Folta, S.C., Lichtenstein, A.H., Seguin, R.A. et al. The StrongWomen–Healthy Hearts program in Pennsylvania: RE-AIM analysis. Behav. Med. Pract. Policy Res. 5, 94–102 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s13142-014-0286-8

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s13142-014-0286-8

Keywords

Search

Navigation