Limits...
Move & Improve: a worksite wellness program in Maine.

Polacsek M, O'Brien LM, Lagasse W, Hammar N - Prev Chronic Dis (2006)

Bottom Line: Using community-based participatory research methodology increases community capacity for evaluation, dissemination, and use of evaluation results.Overall satisfaction with the process has been nurtured through community-based participatory research methods.This approach also enabled us to meet key evaluation standards.

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

Affiliation: Maine-Harvard Prevention Research Center, Maine Center for Public Health, 12 Church St, Augusta, ME 04330, USA. mpolacsek@mcph.org

ABSTRACT

Background: We describe the evaluation process and outcomes of Move & Improve, a worksite wellness program in Maine. The evaluation process was based on the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's Framework for Program Evaluation in Public Health and community-based participatory research principles. Innovative approaches are required to address burgeoning chronic disease trends and risk factors. Worksites are an ideal setting in which to affect working adults and high-risk individuals. Using community-based participatory research methodology increases community capacity for evaluation, dissemination, and use of evaluation results.

Context: Move & Improve is an ongoing program that was implemented in 1996. Although evaluation data have been collected since the program's inception, a more systematic evaluation based on community-based participatory research principles was undertaken in 2003 and 2004 with the technical assistance of the Maine-Harvard Prevention Research Center and Colby College.

Methods: The Maine-Harvard Prevention Research Center facilitated the development of a program logic model, evaluation questions, data collection instruments, an analysis plan, presentations, and reports. We used a cross-sectional study design with nonparticipant comparison groups.

Consequences: Data indicate possible program improvement strategies and substantial improvements in lifestyle factors among participants.

Interpretation: Limitations of the evaluation include participant self-selection, cross-sectional study design, a lack of adequate resources for evaluation, and the challenges of using community-based participatory research methods. Despite these limitations, Move & Improve program staff consider the evaluation of the program a success and have learned ways to improve the program and future evaluation efforts. Overall satisfaction with the process has been nurtured through community-based participatory research methods. This approach also enabled us to meet key evaluation standards.

Show MeSH

Related in: MedlinePlus

Percentage of Move & Improve participants in each category of change for physical activity at posttest, 2003 and 2004.
© Copyright Policy
Related In: Results  -  Collection


getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC1637789&req=5

Figure 1: Percentage of Move & Improve participants in each category of change for physical activity at posttest, 2003 and 2004.

Mentions: Both years of data show that in the 3 months before participating in Move & Improve, more than half of all participants reported no regular exercise or only minimal exercise. As expected, the posttest data from both years show substantial increases in physical activity, with only about 5% of participants remaining inactive or minimally active both years, compared with 27% of comparison group nonparticipants in 2004. In 2004, 61% of all participants increased their physical activity stage of change by one stage or more, and 37% had an increase of two stages or more (Figure 1). In contrast, the majority of comparison group nonparticipants did not increase their stage of physical activity during the same period. Participants beginning in the contemplation stage were more likely to move two stages or more than those beginning in later stages of physical activity (84% in 2004). In 2004, participants beginning in stages 4 and 5 were most likely to report no change (69% of participants in stage 4 and 63% in stage 5). Results were similar for 2003. The lack of movement in later stages is evidence of a ceiling effect: participants who were already more physically active at the beginning of the program were more likely to maintain the same physical activity levels.


Move & Improve: a worksite wellness program in Maine.

Polacsek M, O'Brien LM, Lagasse W, Hammar N - Prev Chronic Dis (2006)

Percentage of Move & Improve participants in each category of change for physical activity at posttest, 2003 and 2004.
© Copyright Policy
Related In: Results  -  Collection

Show All Figures
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC1637789&req=5

Figure 1: Percentage of Move & Improve participants in each category of change for physical activity at posttest, 2003 and 2004.
Mentions: Both years of data show that in the 3 months before participating in Move & Improve, more than half of all participants reported no regular exercise or only minimal exercise. As expected, the posttest data from both years show substantial increases in physical activity, with only about 5% of participants remaining inactive or minimally active both years, compared with 27% of comparison group nonparticipants in 2004. In 2004, 61% of all participants increased their physical activity stage of change by one stage or more, and 37% had an increase of two stages or more (Figure 1). In contrast, the majority of comparison group nonparticipants did not increase their stage of physical activity during the same period. Participants beginning in the contemplation stage were more likely to move two stages or more than those beginning in later stages of physical activity (84% in 2004). In 2004, participants beginning in stages 4 and 5 were most likely to report no change (69% of participants in stage 4 and 63% in stage 5). Results were similar for 2003. The lack of movement in later stages is evidence of a ceiling effect: participants who were already more physically active at the beginning of the program were more likely to maintain the same physical activity levels.

Bottom Line: Using community-based participatory research methodology increases community capacity for evaluation, dissemination, and use of evaluation results.Overall satisfaction with the process has been nurtured through community-based participatory research methods.This approach also enabled us to meet key evaluation standards.

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

Affiliation: Maine-Harvard Prevention Research Center, Maine Center for Public Health, 12 Church St, Augusta, ME 04330, USA. mpolacsek@mcph.org

ABSTRACT

Background: We describe the evaluation process and outcomes of Move & Improve, a worksite wellness program in Maine. The evaluation process was based on the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's Framework for Program Evaluation in Public Health and community-based participatory research principles. Innovative approaches are required to address burgeoning chronic disease trends and risk factors. Worksites are an ideal setting in which to affect working adults and high-risk individuals. Using community-based participatory research methodology increases community capacity for evaluation, dissemination, and use of evaluation results.

Context: Move & Improve is an ongoing program that was implemented in 1996. Although evaluation data have been collected since the program's inception, a more systematic evaluation based on community-based participatory research principles was undertaken in 2003 and 2004 with the technical assistance of the Maine-Harvard Prevention Research Center and Colby College.

Methods: The Maine-Harvard Prevention Research Center facilitated the development of a program logic model, evaluation questions, data collection instruments, an analysis plan, presentations, and reports. We used a cross-sectional study design with nonparticipant comparison groups.

Consequences: Data indicate possible program improvement strategies and substantial improvements in lifestyle factors among participants.

Interpretation: Limitations of the evaluation include participant self-selection, cross-sectional study design, a lack of adequate resources for evaluation, and the challenges of using community-based participatory research methods. Despite these limitations, Move & Improve program staff consider the evaluation of the program a success and have learned ways to improve the program and future evaluation efforts. Overall satisfaction with the process has been nurtured through community-based participatory research methods. This approach also enabled us to meet key evaluation standards.

Show MeSH
Related in: MedlinePlus