Mixed Method Evaluation of a College Student Fitness Program Using the RE-AIM Frameword
AbstractBackground: The consistently rising obesity rate in college student population illustrates the need for organized and effective interventions. The purposes of this study were to evaluate an eight-week fitness program implemented at university student recreation center using mixed-methods along the reach, effectiveness, and implementation dimensions of the RE-AIM framework for evaluating health-promotion programs and to illustrate how qualitative data can be used to enhance the capabilities of the RE-AIM framework to evaluate such programs via providing recommendations to improve the intervention not possible with just a quantitative RE-AIM evaluation. Methods: Quantitative (participation rate, changes in % body fat, and resting heart rate) and qualitative methods (focus groups, interviews, and surveys) were used in the study. Participants in the evaluation were program users. Results: The program reach (1.5/100) and effectiveness (8.5/100) were low, with moderate implementation on the individual level (45.5/100) and high implementation on the organizational level (79/100). Major qualitative themes illustrated that the program‟s strong points were in facilitating physique improvements (n = 11), increasing knowledge (n = 10) and motivation (n = 7) and program shortcomings were primarily due to the quality of personal training (n = 52) and the program dietician services (n = 14). Implications: Such programs often suffer from diminished effectiveness when delivered in the real world, as evident in the present study. The results of the study evaluation can help in the development of effective health promotion programs for the college student population. Suggestions for practice via the RE-AIM framework in conjunction with qualitative analyses are included.
How to Cite
Bartlett, M. L., & Zizzi, S. J. (2010). Mixed Method Evaluation of a College Student Fitness Program Using the RE-AIM Frameword. Californian Journal of Health Promotion, 8(1), 46-59. https://doi.org/10.32398/cjhp.v8i1.2030