Rationale, design and methods for process evaluation in the HEALTHY study

International Journal of Obesity

Volumn 33, Issue SUPPL. 4, 2009, Pages

  Schneider, M ^a   Hall, W J ^b   Hernandez, A E ^c   Hindes, K ^d   Montez, G ^e   Pham, T ^f   Rosen, L ^g   Sleigh, A ^h   Thompson, D ⁱ   Volpe, S L ^g   Zeveloff, A ^b   Steckler, A ^j  

^a UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA   (United States)

^c TEXAS A AND M UNIVERSITY CORPUS CHRISTI   (United States)

^d UNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURGH   (United States)

^e UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS HEALTH SCIENCE CENTER AT SAN ANTONIO   (United States)

^f GEORGE WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^g UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA   (United States)

^h OREGON HEALTH AND SCIENCE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

ⁱ BAYLOR COLLEGE OF MEDICINE   (United States)

^j IL   (United States)

more..

Author keywords

Adolescent; Diabetes; Diet; Physical activity; Process evaluation; School based

Indexed keywords

ADOLESCENT; ARTICLE; CHILD; CLINICAL TRIAL; CONTROLLED CLINICAL TRIAL; CONTROLLED STUDY; CURRICULUM; DIET; FEMALE; HUMAN; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MALE; MIDDLE SCHOOL STUDENT; MULTICENTER STUDY; NON INSULIN DEPENDENT DIABETES MELLITUS; NUTRITION; PHYSICAL ACTIVITY; PHYSICAL EDUCATION; PRIORITY JOURNAL; QUALITATIVE ANALYSIS; QUANTITATIVE ANALYSIS; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL; RISK FACTOR; SCHOOL CHILD;

ADOLESCENT; CHILD; CURRICULUM; DIABETES MELLITUS, TYPE 2; EVALUATION STUDIES AS TOPIC; FEMALE; HEALTH EDUCATION; HEALTH PROMOTION; HUMANS; MALE; OBESITY; PROGRAM EVALUATION; SCHOOLS; STUDENTS; UNITED STATES;

EID: 67749129150     PISSN: 03070565     EISSN: 14765497     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1038/ijo.2009.118     Document Type: Article

References (20)

1. The HEALTHY Study Group. HEALTHY study rationale, design and methods: moderating risk of type 2 diabetes in multi-ethnic middle school students. Int J Obes 2009; 33(Suppl 4): S4-S20.
2. Steckler A, Linnan L. Process Evaluations for Public Health Interventions and Research. Jossey-Bass: San Francisco, 2002.
3. Armstrong R, Waters E, Moore L, Riggs E, Cuervo LG, Lumbiganon P et al. Improving the reporting of public health intervention research: advancing TREND and CONSORT. J Public Health 2008; 30: 103-109.
4. Brown T, Summerbell C. Systematic review of school-based interventions that focus on changing dietary intake and physical activity levels to prevent childhood obesity: an update to the obesity guidance produced by the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence. Obes Rev 2008; 10: 110-141.
5. Saunders RP, Evans MH, Joshi P. Developing a process-evaluation plan for assessing health promotion program implementation: a how-to guide. Health Promot Pract 2005; 6: 134-147.
6. Bowes D, Marquis M, Young W, Holowaty P, Isaac W. Process evaluation of a school-based intervention to increase physical activity and reduce bullying. Health Promot Pract 2008. doi:10.1177/1524839907307886. Available on-line at http://hpp.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/1524839907307886v1.
7. Feathers JT, Kieffer EC, Palmisano G, Anderson M, Janz N, Spencer MS et al. The development, implementation, and process evaluation of the REACH Detroit partnership's diabetes lifestyle intervention. Diabetes Educ 2007; 33: 509-520.
8. Sy A, Glanz K. Factors influencing teachers' implementation of an innovative tobacco prevention curriculum for multiethnic youth: project SPLASH. J Sch Health 2008; 78: 264-273.
9. Young DR, Steckler A, Cohen S, Pratt C, Felton G, Moe SG et al. Process evaluation results from a school- and community-linked intervention: the Trial of Activity for Adolescent Girls (TAAG). Health Educ Res 2008; 23: 976-986.
10. Oakley A, Strange V, Bonell C, Allen E, Stephenson J. Process evaluation in randomised controlled trials of complex interventions. BMJ 2006; 332: 413-416.
11. McMurray RG, Bassin S, Jago R, Bruecker S, Moe EL, Murray T et al., for the HEALTHY Study Group. Rationale, design and methods of the HEALTHY study physical education intervention component. Int J Obes 2009; 33(Suppl 4): S37-S43.
12. Gillis B, Mobley C, Stadler DD, Hartstein J, Virus A, Volpe SL et al., for the HEALTHY Study Group. Rationale, design and methods of the HEALTHY study nutrition intervention component. Int J Obes 2009; 33(Suppl 4): S29-S36.
13. Venditti EM, Elliot DL, Faith MS, Firrell LS, Giles CM, Goldberg L et al., for the HEALTHY Study Group. Rationale, design and methods of the HEALTHY study behavior intervention component. Int J Obes 2009; 33(Suppl 4): S44-S51.
14. DeBar LL, Schneider M, Ford EG, Hernandez AE, Showell B, Drews KL et al., for the HEALTHY Study Group. Social marketing-based communications to integrate and support the HEALTHY study intervention. Int J Obes 2009; 33(Suppl 4): S52-S59.
15. Patton M. Qualitative Evaluation and Research Methods. Sage Publications: Newbury Park, CA, 1990.
16. Collingridge DS, Gantt EE. The quality of qualitative research. Am J Med Qual 2008; 23: 389-395.
17. Kitto SC, Chesters J, Grbich C. Quality in qualitative research. Med J Aust 2008; 188: 243-246.
18. Porter S. Validity, trustworthiness and rigour: reasserting realism in qualitative research. J Adv Nurs 2007; 60: 79-86.
19. Resnicow K, Davis M, Smith M, Yaroch AL, Baranowski T, Baranowski J et al., Wang OT How best to measure implementation of school health curricula: a comparison of three measures. Health Educ Res 1998; 13: 239-250.
20. McGraw SA, Sellers DE, Johnson CC, Stone EJ, Backman KJ, Bebchuk J et al. Using process data to explain outcomes. An illustration from the Child and Adolescent Trial for Cardiovascular Health (CATCH). Eval Rev 1996; 20: 291-312.