↓ Skip to main content

Evaluating the impact of a walking program in a disadvantaged area: using the RE-AIM framework by mixed methods

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Public Health, September 2017
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
15 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
142 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Evaluating the impact of a walking program in a disadvantaged area: using the RE-AIM framework by mixed methods
Published in
BMC Public Health, September 2017
DOI 10.1186/s12889-017-4698-5
Pubmed ID
Authors

Camila Tiome Baba, Isabela Martins Oliveira, Adriele Evelyn Ferreira Silva, Leonardo Moreira Vieira, Natalia Caroline Cerri, Alex Antonio Florindo, Grace Angélica de Oliveira Gomes

Abstract

The positive health impact of physical activity (PA) is well known, yet a large proportion of the world's population remains sedentary. General PA programs are common as health promotion initiatives. However, effectiveness evaluations of such PA programs on individual and organizational aspects, which could inform the decision-making process of public health bodies are still lacking, particularly in the most socially disadvantaged areas, where health promotion schemes are particularly needed. The aim of this study was to assess the effectiveness of a Guided Walking Program in a high social vulnerability context. A quasi-experimental, mixed methods study was conducted. The program had a duration of 6 months and a 6-month follow-up period after the intervention. Session frequency was five times a week, where sessions consisted of supervised PA combined with educational sessions. The Reach, Effectiveness, Adoption, Implementation and Maintenance (RE-AIM) framework was followed to assess the program. The International Physical Activity Questionnaire (IPAQ) and accelerometers were used to measure levels of PA. Focus groups were conducted to gain a comprehensive insight on the implementation domain. Most subjects in the intervention (IG) (n = 74) and control (CG) (n = 74) groups were female (IG:90.5%; CG:95.9%), aged 18-49 years (IG:44.6%; CG:43.2%), received less than 1 minimum wage (IG:74.3%; CG:83.7%) and had 0-4 years of formal education (IG:52.1%; CG:46.1%). The reach of the intervention was 0.3%. The IG showed increased levels of PA at post-intervention and 6-month follow-up. However, the difference between groups was not statistically significant. Adoption data revealed that 89.5% of the professionals in the Primary Health Care Center (health center) team perceived the benefits of the program for the population. The program was independently promoted by the health center team for a further 4 months post-intervention. The qualitative data revealed that the program was discontinued due to participants' low adherence and human resource limitations in the unit's operational dynamics. A health promotion intervention in a socially deprived setting faces challenges but can be effective and feasible to implement. The present study informs the development of future health promotion initiatives in this context. NCT02857127 . Registered: 30 July 2016 (retrospectively registered).

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 142 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 142 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 16 11%
Student > Master 13 9%
Student > Ph. D. Student 12 8%
Student > Bachelor 11 8%
Student > Postgraduate 10 7%
Other 23 16%
Unknown 57 40%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 22 15%
Nursing and Health Professions 14 10%
Sports and Recreations 14 10%
Social Sciences 10 7%
Psychology 4 3%
Other 14 10%
Unknown 64 45%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 19 September 2017.
All research outputs
#15,479,632
of 23,002,898 outputs
Outputs from BMC Public Health
#11,437
of 14,986 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#198,603
of 316,186 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Public Health
#121
of 160 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,002,898 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 14,986 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.0. This one is in the 16th percentile – i.e., 16% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 316,186 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 28th percentile – i.e., 28% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 160 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 18th percentile – i.e., 18% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.