Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Randomized Controlled Trial
. 2012 Sep 19:12:146.
doi: 10.1186/1471-2288-12-146.

Intervention dose estimation in health promotion programmes: a framework and a tool. Application to the diet and physical activity promotion PRALIMAP trial

Karine Legrand  1 , Emilie Bonsergent, Clotilde Latarche, Fabienne Empereur, Jean François Collin, Edith Lecomte, Evelyne Aptel, Nathalie Thilly, Serge Briançon
Affiliations
Randomized Controlled Trial

Intervention dose estimation in health promotion programmes: a framework and a tool. Application to the diet and physical activity promotion PRALIMAP trial

Karine Legrand et al. BMC Med Res Methodol. .

Abstract

Background: Although the outcomes of health promotion and prevention programmes may depend on the level of intervention, studies and trials often fail to take it into account. The objective of this work was to develop a framework within which to consider the implementation of interventions, and to propose a tool with which to measure the quantity and the quality of activities, whether planned or not, relevant to the intervention under investigation. The framework and the tool were applied to data from the diet and physical activity promotion PRALIMAP trial.

Methods: A framework allowing for calculation of an intervention dose in any health promotion programme was developed. A literature reviews revealed several relevant concepts that were considered in greater detail by a multidisciplinary working group. A method was devised with which to calculate the dose of intervention planned and that is actually received (programme-driven activities dose), as well as the amount of non-planned intervention (non-programme-driven activities dose).

Results: Indicators cover the roles of all those involved (supervisors, anchor personnel as receivers and providers, targets), in each intervention-related groups (IRG: basic setting in which a given intervention is planned by the programme and may differ in implementation level) and for every intervention period. All indicators are described according to two domains (delivery, participation) in two declensions (quantity and quality). Application to PRALIMAP data revealed important inter- and intra-IRG variability in intervention dose.

Conclusions: A literature analysis shows that the terminology in this area is not yet consolidated and that research is ongoing. The present work provides a methodological framework by specifying concepts, by defining new constructs and by developing multiple information synthesis methods which must be introduced from the programme's conception. Application to PRALIMAP underlined the feasibility of measuring the implementation level. The framework and the tool can be used in any complex programme evaluation. The intervention doses obtained could be particularly useful in comparative trials.

Trial registration: PRALIMAP is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov under NCT00814554.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Hierarchical organisation of the 16 key objects of evaluation contributing to intervention dose calculation.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Template of indicators report sheet.
Figure 3
Figure 3
PRALIMAP educational and environmental intervention dose received according to the assigned strategies.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Dusenbury L, Brannigan R, Falco M, Hansen WB. A review of research on fidelity of implementation: implications for drug abuse prevention in school settings. Health Educ Res. 2003;18:237–256. doi: 10.1093/her/18.2.237. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Dane AV, Schneider BH. Program integrity in primary and early secondary prevention: are implementation effects out of control? Clin Psychol Rev. 1998;18:23–45. doi: 10.1016/S0272-7358(97)00043-3. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Durlak JA, DuPre EP. Implementation matters: a review of research on the influence of implementation on program outcomes and the factors affecting implementation. Am J Community Psychol. 2008;41:327–350. doi: 10.1007/s10464-008-9165-0. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Saunders RP, Ward D, Felton GM, Dowda M, Pate RR. Examining the link between program implementation and behavior outcomes in the lifestyle education for activity program (LEAP) Eval Program Plann. 2006;29:352–364. doi: 10.1016/j.evalprogplan.2006.08.006. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Basch CE, Sliepcevich EM, Gold RS, Duncan DF, Kolbe LJ. Avoiding type III errors in health education program evaluations: a case study. Health Educ Q. 1985;12:315–331. doi: 10.1177/109019818501200311. - DOI - PubMed

Publication types

Associated data