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… Click to show full 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 (χ2 = 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; Mage = 44 ± 11.8) per HE than ALED (n = 27 total; 60 % female; 50 % Caucasian; Mage = 41 ± 11.3). No significant difference existed in FitEx or ALED participants’ increased PA (Mincrease = 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.
               
Click one of the above tabs to view related content.