IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/epplan/v43y2014icp93-102.html

Process evaluation methods, implementation fidelity results and relationship to physical activity and healthy eating in the Faith, Activity, and Nutrition (FAN) study

Author

Listed:
  • Saunders, Ruth P.
  • Wilcox, Sara
  • Baruth, Meghan
  • Dowda, Marsha

Abstract

Faith, Activity and Nutrition (FAN), a community-based participatory research project in African American churches, aimed to increase congregant physical activity and healthy eating. The Health-Promoting Church framework, developed collaboratively with faith-based partners, guided the intervention and a comprehensive process evaluation. The Health-Promoting Church components related to healthy eating and physical activity were getting the message out, opportunities, pastor support, and organizational policy. There was no evidence for sequential mediation for any of the healthy eating components. These results illustrate the complexity of systems change within organizational settings and the importance of conducting process evaluation. The FAN intervention resulted in increased implementation for all physical activity and most healthy eating components. Mediation analyses revealed no direct association between implementation and increased physical activity; rather, sequential mediation analysis showed that implementation of physical activity messages was associated with improved self-efficacy at the church level, which was associated with increased physical activity.

Suggested Citation

  • Saunders, Ruth P. & Wilcox, Sara & Baruth, Meghan & Dowda, Marsha, 2014. "Process evaluation methods, implementation fidelity results and relationship to physical activity and healthy eating in the Faith, Activity, and Nutrition (FAN) study," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 43(C), pages 93-102.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:epplan:v:43:y:2014:i:c:p:93-102
    DOI: 10.1016/j.evalprogplan.2013.11.003
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0149718913001031
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.evalprogplan.2013.11.003?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to

    for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Saunders, Ruth P. & Ward, Dianne & Felton, Gwen M. & Dowda, Marsha & Pate, Russell R., 2006. "Examining the link between program implementation and behavior outcomes in the lifestyle education for activity program (LEAP)," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 29(4), pages 352-364, November.
    2. Bouffard, Jeffrey A. & Taxman, Faye S. & Silverman, Rebecca, 2003. "Improving process evaluations of correctional programs by using a comprehensive evaluation methodology," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 26(2), pages 149-161, May.
    3. Cooksy, Leslie J. & Gill, Paige & Kelly, P. Adam, 2001. "The program logic model as an integrative framework for a multimethod evaluation," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 24(2), pages 119-128, May.
    4. Eyler, Amy A. & Brownson, Ross C. & Donatelle, Rebecca J. & King, Abby C. & Brown, David & Sallis, James F., 1999. "Physical activity social support and middle- and older-aged minority women: results from a US survey," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 49(6), pages 781-789, September.
    5. Condrasky, Margaret D. & Baruth, Meghan & Wilcox, Sara & Carter, Chad & Jordan, Jeannette F., 2013. "Cooks training for Faith, Activity, and Nutrition project with AME churches in SC," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 37(C), pages 43-49.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Marieke De Craemer & Vera Verbestel & Maïté Verloigne & Odysseas Androutsos & Luis Moreno & Violeta Iotova & Berthold Koletzko & Piotr Socha & Yannis Manios & Greet Cardon, 2020. "Combining Effect and Process Evaluation on European Preschool Children’s Snacking Behavior in a Kindergarten-Based, Family-Involved Cluster Randomized Controlled Trial: The ToyBox Study," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(19), pages 1-20, October.
    2. Wong, Elaine Yee-Sing & Lee, Andy H. & James, Anthony P. & Jancey, Jonine, 2020. "Process evaluation of the ‘Singapore Physical Activity and Nutrition Study’," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 83(C).
    3. Harmon, Brook E. & San Diego, Emily Rose N. & Pichon, Latrice C. & Powell, Terrinieka W. & Rugless, Fedoria & West, Nathan T. & Minor, Lottie & McNeal, Sterling & McCann, Lauren & Hales, Lauren S. & D, 2022. "Congregational health needs by key demographic variables: Findings from a congregational health needs assessment tool," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 94(C).
    4. Egan, Cate A. & Webster, Collin & Weaver, R. Glenn & Brian, Ali & Stodden, David & Russ, Laura & Nesbitt, Danielle & Vazou, Spyridoula, 2018. "Partnerships for Active Children in Elementary Schools (PACES): First year process evaluation," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 67(C), pages 61-69.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Saunders, Ruth P. & Ward, Dianne & Felton, Gwen M. & Dowda, Marsha & Pate, Russell R., 2006. "Examining the link between program implementation and behavior outcomes in the lifestyle education for activity program (LEAP)," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 29(4), pages 352-364, November.
    2. Park, Chul Hyun & Welch, Eric W. & Sriraj, P.S., 2016. "An integrative theory-driven framework for evaluating travel training programs," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 59(C), pages 7-20.
    3. McNeill, Lorna Haughton & Kreuter, Matthew W. & Subramanian, S.V., 2006. "Social Environment and Physical activity: A review of concepts and evidence," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 63(4), pages 1011-1022, August.
    4. Tim Benijts, 2014. "A Business Sustainability Model for Government Corporations. A Belgian Case Study," Business Strategy and the Environment, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 23(3), pages 204-216, March.
    5. Jacqueline E McLaughlin & Rebekah L Layton & Paul B Watkins & Robert A Nicholas & Kim L R Brouwer, 2022. "Developing evidence-based resources for evaluating postgraduate trainees in the biomedical sciences," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 17(12), pages 1-13, December.
    6. Johnson, Blair T. & Acabchuk, Rebecca L., 2018. "What are the keys to a longer, happier life? Answers from five decades of health psychology research," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 196(C), pages 218-226.
    7. Ullrich-French, Sarah & Cole, Amy N. & Montgomery, Anna K., 2016. "Evaluation development for a physical activity positive youth development program for girls," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 55(C), pages 67-76.
    8. Burford, Gemma & Velasco, Ismael & Janoušková, Svatava & Zahradnik, Martin & Hak, Tomas & Podger, Dimity & Piggot, Georgia & Harder, Marie K., 2013. "Field trials of a novel toolkit for evaluating ‘intangible’ values-related dimensions of projects," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 36(1), pages 1-14.
    9. Bozeman, Barry & Rimes, Heather & Youtie, Jan, 2015. "The evolving state-of-the-art in technology transfer research: Revisiting the contingent effectiveness model," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 44(1), pages 34-49.
    10. Legrand, Karine & Minary, Laetitia & Briançon, Serge, 2018. "Exploration of the experiences, practices and needs of health promotion professionals when evaluating their interventions and programmes," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 70(C), pages 67-72.
    11. Leire Gartzia, 2021. "Gender Equality in Business Action: A Multi-Agent Change Management Approach," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(11), pages 1-29, May.
    12. Johnson, Knowlton & Hays, Carol & Center, Hayden & Daley, Charlotte, 2004. "Building capacity and sustainable prevention innovations: a sustainability planning model," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 27(2), pages 135-149, May.
    13. McLinden, Daniel, 2017. "And then the internet happened: Thoughts on the future of concept mapping," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 60(C), pages 293-300.
    14. Alia, Kassandra A. & Wilson, Dawn K. & McDaniel, Tyler & St. George, Sara M. & Kitzman-Ulrich, Heather & Smith, Kelsey & Heatley, VaShawn & Wise, Courtney, 2015. "Development of an innovative process evaluation approach for the Families Improving Together (FIT) for weight loss trial in African American adolescents," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 49(C), pages 106-116.
    15. Grommon, Eric, 2018. "Managed access technology to combat contraband cell phones in prison: Findings from a process evaluation," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 66(C), pages 39-47.
    16. Victoria A. Johnson & Kevin R. Ronan & David M. Johnston & Robin Peace, 2016. "Improving the Impact and Implementation of Disaster Education: Programs for Children Through Theory‐Based Evaluation," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 36(11), pages 2120-2135, November.
    17. Sara Hoy & Björg Helgadóttir & Åsa Norman, 2022. "Quantitative Measurements for Factors Influencing Implementation in School Settings: Protocol for A Systematic Review and A Psychometric and Pragmatic Analysis," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(19), pages 1-11, October.
    18. Vinícius P. Rodrigues & Daniela C. A. Pigosso & Jakob W. Andersen & Tim C. McAloone, 2018. "Evaluating the Potential Business Benefits of Ecodesign Implementation: A Logic Model Approach," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(6), pages 1-26, June.
    19. Odendaal, Willem A. & Marais, Sandra & Munro, Salla & van Niekerk, Ashley, 2008. "When the trivial becomes meaningful: Reflections on a process evaluation of a home visitation programme in South Africa," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 31(2), pages 209-216, May.
    20. Shu-Ping Chen & Wen-Pin Chang & Bryan Fleet & Santoch Rai & Steve Panteluk & Alberto Choy & DeAnn Hunter, 2021. "Is a Forensic Cohabitation Program Recovery-Oriented? A Logic Model Analysis," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(1), pages 1-11, December.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:epplan:v:43:y:2014:i:c:p:93-102. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/evalprogplan .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.