Rationale, design and methods for process evaluation in the HEALTHY study (original) (raw)

References

  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.
    Article Google Scholar
  2. Steckler A, Linnan L . Process Evaluations for Public Health Interventions and Research. Jossey-Bass: San Francisco, 2002.
    Google Scholar
  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.
    Article Google Scholar
  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.
    Article Google Scholar
  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.
    Article Google Scholar
  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.
    Article Google Scholar
  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.
    Article Google Scholar
  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.
    Article Google Scholar
  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.
    Article CAS Google Scholar
  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.
    Article Google Scholar
  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.
    Article Google Scholar
  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.
    Article Google Scholar
  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.
    Article Google Scholar
  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.
    Article Google Scholar
  15. Patton M . Qualitative Evaluation and Research Methods. Sage Publications: Newbury Park, CA, 1990.
    Google Scholar
  16. Collingridge DS, Gantt EE . The quality of qualitative research. Am J Med Qual 2008; 23: 389–395.
    Article Google Scholar
  17. Kitto SC, Chesters J, Grbich C . Quality in qualitative research. Med J Aust 2008; 188: 243–246.
    PubMed Google Scholar
  18. Porter S . Validity, trustworthiness and rigour: reasserting realism in qualitative research. J Adv Nurs 2007; 60: 79–86.
    Article Google Scholar
  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.
    Article CAS Google Scholar
  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.
    Article CAS Google Scholar

Download references

Acknowledgements

Past and present members of the Process Evaluation Committee are Allan Steckler (chair), Tom Baranowski, Stan Bassin, Steve Bruecker, Wendy Burd, Ashanti Canada, Lynn DeBar, Eileen Ford, Debby Ford, Stacy Grau, Natasha Greene, Will Hall, Joanne Harrell, Jill Hartstein, Art Hernandez, Katie Hindes, Ann Jessup, Sean Kolmer, Chung-Hui Lin, Mariam Missaghian, Griselle Montez, A. Gayle Moore, Mia Morris, Patricia Pearce, Trang Pham, Kimari Phillips, Amanda Phillips-Martinez, Leigh Rosen, Margaret Schneider, Sandy Sherman, Linda Simkin, Adriana Sleigh, Debbe Thompson, Victoria Thompson, Thang Trinh, Beth Venditti, Stella Volpe, Alyssa Voss, Maihan Vu, Lisa Wald, Alissa Wheeler, Mamie White and Abby Zeveloff. We certify that all applicable institutional and governmental regulations concerning the ethical use of human volunteers were followed during this research.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Planning, Policy and Design, University of California at Irvine, Irvine, CA, USA
    M Schneider
  2. School of Nursing, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC, USA
    W J Hall & A Zeveloff
  3. College of Education, Texas A&M University, Corpus Christi, TX, USA
    A E Hernandez
  4. Western Psychiatric Institute and Clinic, University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, Pittsburgh, PA, USA
    K Hindes
  5. Social & Health Research Center, University of Texas Health Science Center at San Antonio, San Antonio, TX, USA
    G Montez
  6. Biostatistics Center, George Washington University, Rockville, MD, USA
    T Pham
  7. Center for Clinical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA
    L Rosen
  8. Health Promotion & Sports Medicine, Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, OR, USA
    A Sleigh
  9. USDA/ARS Children's Nutrition Research Center, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, TX, USA
    D Thompson
  10. Division of Biobehavioral and Health Sciences, School of Nursing, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA
    S L Volpe
  11. Department of Health Behavior/Health Education, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC, USA
    A Steckler

Authors

  1. M Schneider
    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar
  2. W J Hall
    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar
  3. A E Hernandez
    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar
  4. K Hindes
    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar
  5. G Montez
    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar
  6. T Pham
    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar
  7. L Rosen
    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar
  8. A Sleigh
    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar
  9. D Thompson
    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar
  10. S L Volpe
    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar
  11. A Zeveloff
    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar
  12. A Steckler
    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

Consortia

for the HEALTHY Study Group

Corresponding author

Correspondence toM Schneider.

Rights and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Schneider, M., Hall, W., Hernandez, A. et al. Rationale, design and methods for process evaluation in the HEALTHY study.Int J Obes 33 (Suppl 4), S60–S67 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1038/ijo.2009.118

Download citation

Keywords