UKCRC Centre for Diet and Activity Research (CEDAR) and Norwich Medical School, University of East Anglia, Norwich, UK.
School of Health Sciences, University of East Anglia, Norwich, UK.
Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act. 2021 Feb 16;18(1):31. doi: 10.1186/s12966-021-01098-8.
Interventions to improve physical activity behaviour are a core part of public health policy and practice. It is essential that we evaluate these interventions and use the evidence to inform decisions to improve population health. Evaluation of 'real-world' interventions provide an opportunity to generate practice-relevant evidence, however these interventions are difficult to evaluate. Various guidelines have been developed to facilitate evaluation, but evidence about their effectiveness in practice is limited. To explore influences on evaluation practice in an applied context, we conducted a case study of Sport England's 'Get Healthy Get Active' (GHGA) programme. This was a national programme that funded 33 projects that were delivered and evaluated across England. The programme was chosen as it was designed to generate evidence on the role of sport in increasing physical activity and improving health. The study aimed to explore and appraise whether strategies intended to facilitate project evaluation, including funder requirements to use a standardised evaluation framework and specific data collection methods, were effective in generating evidence that enabled the programme to meet its aims.
We applied a collective case study design involving 35 semi-structured interviews, and documentary analysis of multiple sources of evidence from 23 physical activity projects funded by GHGA. We applied thematic and framework analysis. We developed a logic model and mapped actual outcomes against intended outcomes. A narrative synthesis is provided. We discuss implications for the effective commissioning and evaluation of public health interventions.
We identified five main themes of influences on evaluation practices that can act as barriers and facilitators to good practice: programme and project design; evaluation design; partnerships; resources; and organisational structures and systems. These influences are context-specific and operate through a complex set of interactions.
Developing a better understanding of how influences on evaluation practice can act as facilitators or barriers is vital to help close current gaps in the evidence-based practice cycle. Critically, organisational structures and systems are needed to facilitate collaborative decision making; integration of projects and evaluation across partners organisations; transfer of knowldege and insights between stakeholders; and more rapid feedback and dissemination.
促进身体活动行为的干预措施是公共卫生政策和实践的核心部分。评估这些干预措施并利用证据为改善人口健康做出决策至关重要。对“真实世界”干预措施的评估提供了生成实践相关证据的机会，然而这些干预措施很难评估。已经制定了各种指南来促进评估，但关于其在实践中的有效性的证据有限。为了在应用背景下探讨评估实践的影响，我们对英格兰体育协会的“保持健康，积极参与”（GHGA）计划进行了案例研究。这是一个全国性计划，资助了在英格兰各地实施和评估的 33 个项目。选择该计划是因为它旨在为体育在增加身体活动和改善健康方面的作用生成证据。该研究旨在探讨和评估旨在促进项目评估的策略，包括资助者要求使用标准化评估框架和特定数据收集方法，是否有效地生成证据，使该计划能够实现其目标。
我们采用了集体案例研究设计，涉及 35 次半结构化访谈，以及对 GHGA 资助的 23 个身体活动项目的多种来源证据进行的文档分析。我们应用了主题和框架分析。我们制定了一个逻辑模型，并将实际结果与预期结果进行了映射。提供了叙述性综合。我们讨论了对公共卫生干预措施的有效委托和评估的影响。
我们确定了影响评估实践的五个主要主题，这些主题可以成为良好实践的障碍和促进因素：项目和项目设计；评估设计；伙伴关系；资源；以及组织结构和系统。这些影响是特定于背景的，并通过一系列复杂的相互作用运作。
深入了解影响评估实践的因素如何成为促进因素或障碍因素对于帮助缩小循证实践循环中的当前差距至关重要。至关重要的是，需要组织结构和系统来促进合作伙伴组织之间的协作决策；项目和评估的整合；利益相关者之间的知识和见解的转移；以及更快速的反馈和传播。
