Should We Scale-Up? A Mixed Methods Process Evaluation of an Intervention Targeting Sedentary Office Workers Using the RE-AIM QuEST Framework

Bradley MacDonald, Ann-Marie Gibson, Xanne Janssen, Jasmin Hutchinson, Samuel Headley, Tracey Matthews and Alison Kirk
Additional contact information
Bradley MacDonald: School of Psychological Sciences and Health, University of Strathclyde, 16 Richmond Street, Glasgow G1 1XQ, UK
Ann-Marie Gibson: School of Psychological Sciences and Health, University of Strathclyde, 16 Richmond Street, Glasgow G1 1XQ, UK
Xanne Janssen: School of Psychological Sciences and Health, University of Strathclyde, 16 Richmond Street, Glasgow G1 1XQ, UK
Jasmin Hutchinson: Department of Exercise Science and Athletic Training, Springfield College, 263 Alden Street, Springfield, MA 01109, USA
Samuel Headley: Department of Exercise Science and Athletic Training, Springfield College, 263 Alden Street, Springfield, MA 01109, USA
Tracey Matthews: School of Physical Education, Performance and Sport Leadership, Springfield College, 263 Alden Street, Springfield, MA 01109, USA
Alison Kirk: School of Psychological Sciences and Health, University of Strathclyde, 16 Richmond Street, Glasgow G1 1XQ, UK

IJERPH, 2019, vol. 17, issue 1, 1-18

Abstract: Background : Interventions targeting a reduction in sedentary behaviour in office workers need to be scaled-up to have impact. In this study, the RE-AIM QuEST framework was used to evaluate the potential for further implementation and scale-up of a consultation based workplace intervention which targeted both the reduction, and breaking up of sitting time. Methods: To evaluate the Springfield College sedentary behaviour intervention across multiple RE-AIM QuEST indicators; intervention participant, non-participant (employees who did not participate) and key informant (consultation delivery team; members of the research team and stakeholders in workplace health promotion) data were collected using interviews, focus groups and questionnaires. Questionnaires were summarized using descriptive statistics and interviews and focus groups were transcribed verbatim, and thematically analysed. Results : Barriers to scale-up were: participant burden of activity monitoring; lack of management support; influence of policy; flexibility (scheduling/locations); time and cost. Facilitators to scale up were: visible leadership; social and cultural changes in the workplace; high acceptability; existing health and wellbeing programmes; culture and philosophy of the participating college. Conclusions : There is potential for scale-up, however adaptations will need to be made to address the barriers to scale-up. Future interventions in office workers should evaluate for scalability during the pilot phases of research.

Keywords: sedentary; sitting; office workers; workplace health; process evaluation; RE-AIM; scale-up (search for similar items in EconPapers)
JEL-codes: I I1 I3 Q Q5 (search for similar items in EconPapers)
Date: 2019
References: View references in EconPapers View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations: View citations in EconPapers (1)

Downloads: (external link)
https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/17/1/239/pdf (application/pdf)
https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/17/1/239/ (text/html)

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:17:y:2019:i:1:p:239-:d:302995

Access Statistics for this article

IJERPH is currently edited by Ms. Jenna Liu

More articles in IJERPH from MDPI
Bibliographic data for series maintained by MDPI Indexing Manager ().