Display options
Share it on

BMC Public Health. 2014 Jul 28;14:757. doi: 10.1186/1471-2458-14-757.

Process evaluation outcomes from a global child obesity prevention intervention.

BMC public health

Simone Pettigrew, Jean Michel Borys, Hugues Ruault du Plessis, Lea Walter, Terry T-K Huang, Jeffrey Levi, Jan Vinck

Affiliations

  1. School of Psychology and Speech Pathology, CurtinUniversity, Kent St, Bentley, WA 6102, Australia. [email protected].

PMID: 25065414 PMCID: PMC4122757 DOI: 10.1186/1471-2458-14-757

Abstract

BACKGROUND: While it is acknowledged that child obesity interventions should cover multiple ecological levels (downstream, midstream and upstream) to maximize their effectiveness, there is a lack of evaluation data to guide the development and implementation of such efforts. To commence addressing this knowledge gap, the present study provides process evaluation data relating to the experiences of groups implementing the EPODE approach to child obesity prevention in various locations around the world. The aim of this exploratory study was to investigate the barriers and facilitators to program implementation in program sites around the world to assist in developing strategies to enhance program outcomes.

METHODS: An online survey that included open-ended questions was distributed to the 25 EPODE programs in operation at the time of the survey (May 2012). The survey items asked respondents to comment on those aspects of program implementation that they found challenging and to suggest areas for future improvement. Eighteen programs representing 14 countries responded to the request to participate in the survey, yielding a 72% response rate. The responses were analyzed via the constant comparative method using NVivo qualitative data analysis software.

RESULTS: The main concerns of the various EPODE programs were their ability to secure ongoing funding and their access to evidence-based intervention methods and policy advice relating to relationships with third parties. These issues were in turn impacted by other factors, including (i) access to user-friendly information relating to the range of intervention strategies available and appropriate evaluation measures; (ii) assistance with building and maintaining stakeholder relationships; and (iii) assurance of the quality, independence, and transparency of policies and practices.

CONCLUSIONS: The findings are facilitating the ongoing refinement of the EPODE approach. In particular, standardized and tailored information packages are being made available to advise program members of (i) the various evaluation methods and tools at their disposal and (ii) methods of acquiring private partner support. Overall, the study results relating to the types of issues encountered by program members are likely to be useful in guiding the future design and implementation of multi-level initiatives seeking to address other complex and intractable health-related problems.

References

  1. BMC Public Health. 2012 Sep 09;12:755 - PubMed
  2. Obes Rev. 2009 Jan;10(1):76-86 - PubMed
  3. Obesity (Silver Spring). 2007 May;15(5):1325-36 - PubMed
  4. Obes Rev. 2010 Oct;11(10):695-708 - PubMed
  5. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2011 Dec 07;(12):CD001871 - PubMed
  6. Global Health. 2012 May 29;8:11 - PubMed
  7. Pediatrics. 2012 Dec;130(6):e1647-71 - PubMed
  8. Prev Med. 1993 Mar;22(2):167-77 - PubMed
  9. Econ Hum Biol. 2012 Mar;10(2):127-38 - PubMed
  10. Health Educ Q. 1988 Fall;15(3):299-315 - PubMed
  11. Aust New Zealand Health Policy. 2005 Jul 20;2:17 - PubMed
  12. J Public Health Policy. 2004;25(3-4):353-66 - PubMed
  13. Obes Rev. 2009 May;10(3):313-23 - PubMed
  14. Prev Chronic Dis. 2009 Jul;6(3):A82 - PubMed
  15. Int J Obes (Lond). 2009 Apr;33 Suppl 1:S74-81 - PubMed
  16. Prev Chronic Dis. 2010 Jul;7(4):A77 - PubMed
  17. Int J Obes (Lond). 2008 Jul;32(7):1060-7 - PubMed
  18. Aust N Z J Psychiatry. 2011 May;45(5):384-92 - PubMed
  19. BMJ Open. 2012 Dec 18;2(6): - PubMed
  20. Health Promot Int. 2011 Mar;26(1):91-9 - PubMed
  21. Lancet. 2011 Aug 27;378(9793):815-25 - PubMed
  22. Psychol Bull. 2007 Sep;133(5):884-906 - PubMed
  23. Lancet. 2010 May 15;375(9727):1737-48 - PubMed
  24. Age Ageing. 2010 Mar;39(2):176-84 - PubMed
  25. Nutr Rev. 2001 Mar;59(3 Pt 2):S21-39; discussion S57-65 - PubMed
  26. Lancet. 2014 Aug 30;384(9945):766-81 - PubMed
  27. Prev Med. 2013 Oct;57(4):322-7 - PubMed
  28. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2008 Dec;93(12):4600-5 - PubMed
  29. Annu Rev Public Health. 2010;31:399-418 - PubMed
  30. Circulation. 2006 Jul 4;114(1):82-96 - PubMed
  31. Obes Rev. 2012 Apr;13(4):299-315 - PubMed
  32. Obesity (Silver Spring). 2010 Feb;18 Suppl 1:S1-3 - PubMed
  33. Lancet. 2013 Feb 23;381(9867):670-9 - PubMed
  34. Annu Rev Public Health. 2009;30:175-201 - PubMed
  35. Obes Rev. 2013 Feb;14(2):162-70 - PubMed
  36. Best Pract Res Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2013 Apr;27(2):105-15 - PubMed
  37. N Engl J Med. 2009 Feb 26;360(9):923-5 - PubMed
  38. BMC Res Notes. 2012 Jan 10;5:20 - PubMed
  39. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2008 Dec;93(12):4606-15 - PubMed
  40. Lancet. 2011 Aug 27;378(9793):804-14 - PubMed
  41. Acta Paediatr. 2012 Nov;101(11):1170-4 - PubMed
  42. Obes Rev. 2002 Nov;3(4):289-301 - PubMed
  43. Prev Chronic Dis. 2012;9:E116 - PubMed
  44. Annu Rev Public Health. 2011;32:285-306 - PubMed
  45. Public Health Nutr. 2002 Jun;5(3):441-8 - PubMed
  46. Addict Behav. 1994 Mar-Apr;19(2):135-45 - PubMed
  47. Pediatr Obes. 2013 Feb;8(1):42-51 - PubMed

MeSH terms

Publication Types