News from CDC (summer 2011)—translating knowledge to program action for nutrition, physical activity, and obesity interventions

CDC's Division of Nutrition, Physical Activity, and Obesity (DNPAO) focuses on supporting healthy eating and active living through policy and environmental changes where Americans live, work, learn, and play. Within DNPAO, the Program Development and Translation Team (PDATT)-a cross-disciplinary team of behavioral scientists, epidemiologists, nutritionists, physical activity specialists, and public health educators-works to identify, synthesize, and disseminate evidence- and practice-based interventions to state-funded programs. In addition to the translation efforts of PDATT, DNPAO provides external funding to the Center for Training and Research Translation to translate and disseminate evidence-informed interventions and train practitioners to adapt and implement obesity-prevention interventions

Policy, Systems, and Environmental Approaches to Obesity Prevention: Translating and Disseminating Evidence from Practice

To reduce obesity prevalence, public health practitioners are intervening to change health behaviors as well as the policies, systems, and environments (PSEs) that support healthy behaviors. Although the number of recommended PSE intervention strategies continues to grow, limited guidance is available on how to implement those strategies in practice. This article describes the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Center for Training and Research Translation's (Center TRT's) approach to reviewing, translating, and disseminating practitioner-developed interventions, with the goal of providing more practical guidance on how to implement PSE intervention strategies in real-world practice. As of August 2014, Center TRT had disseminated 30 practice-based PSE interventions. This article provides an overview of Center TRT's process for reviewing, translating, and disseminating practice-based interventions and offers key lessons learned during the nine years that Center TRT has engaged in this work

Beyond Effectiveness: Evaluating the Public Health Impact of the WISEWOMAN Program

Interventions that are effective are often improperly or only partially implemented when put into practice. When intervention programs are evaluated, feasibility of implementation and effectiveness need to be examined. Reach, effectiveness, adoption, implementation, and maintenance make up the RE-AIM framework used to assess such programs. To examine the usefulness of this metric, we addressed 2 key research questions. Is it feasible to operationalize the RE-AIM framework using women’s health program data? How does the determination of a successful program differ if the criterion is (1) effectiveness alone, (2) reach and effectiveness, or (3) the 5 dimensions of the RE-AIM framework? Findings indicate that it is feasible to operationalize the RE-AIM concepts and that RE-AIM may provide a richer measure of contextual factors for program success compared with other evaluation approaches

Identifying Best Practices for WISEWOMAN Programs Using a Mixed-Methods Evaluation

IntroductionRecommendations on best practices typically are drawn from unique settings; these practices are challenging to implement in programs already in operation. We describe an evaluation that identifies best practices in implementing lifestyle interventions in the Center for Disease Control and Prevention’s WISEWOMAN program and discuss our lessons learned in using the approach.MethodsWe used a mixed-methods evaluation that integrated quantitative and qualitative inquiry. Five state or tribal WISEWOMAN projects were included in the study. The projects were selected on the basis of availability of quantitative program performance data, which were used to identify two high-performing and one low-performing site within each project. We collected qualitative data through interviews, observation, and focus groups so we could understand the practices and strategies used to select and implement the interventions. Data were analyzed in a multistep process that included summarization, identification of themes and practices of interest, and application of an algorithm.ResultsPilot testing data collection methods allowed for critical revisions. Conducting preliminary interviews allowed for more in-depth interviews while on site. Observing the lifestyle intervention being administered was key to understanding the program. Conducting focus groups with participants helped to validate information from other sources and offered a more complete picture of the program.ConclusionUsing a mixed-methods evaluation minimized the weaknesses inherent in each method and improved the completeness and quality of data collected. A mixed-methods evaluation permits triangulation of data and is a promising strategy for identifying best practices