Comparing national device-based physical activity surveillance systems: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Physical activity surveillance systems are important for public health monitoring but rely mostly on self-report measurement of physical activity. Integration of device-based measurements in such systems can improve population estimates, however this is still relatively uncommon in existing surveillance systems. This systematic review aims to create an overview of the methodology used in existing device-based national PA surveillance systems. METHODS: Four literature databases (PubMed, Embase.com, SPORTDiscus and Web of Science) were searched, supplemented with backward tracking. Articles were included if they reported on population-based (inter)national surveillance systems measuring PA, sedentary time and/or adherence to PA guidelines. When available and in English, the methodological reports of the identified surveillance studies were also included for data extraction. RESULTS: This systematic literature search followed the PRISMA guidelines and yielded 34 articles and an additional 18 methodological reports, reporting on 28 studies, which in turn reported on one or multiple waves of 15 different national and 1 international surveillance system. The included studies showed substantial variation between (waves of) systems in number of participants, response rates, population representativeness and recruitment. In contrast, the methods were similar on data reduction definitions (e.g. minimal number of valid days, non-wear time and necessary wear time for a valid day). CONCLUSIONS: The results of this review indicate that few countries use device-based PA measurement in their surveillance system. The employed methodology is diverse, which hampers comparability between countries and calls for more standardized methods as well as standardized reporting on these methods. The results from this review can help inform the integration of device-based PA measurement in (inter)national surveillance systems.

A sports-related injury prevention program for Dutch youth volleyball players: Process evaluation alongside a quasi-randomized controlled trial.

OBJECTIVE: This process evaluation aimed to gain insight into the implementation of the VolleyVeilig Youth program by Dutch volleyball clubs within the context of an effectiveness trial. METHODS: We applied the UK Medical Research Council framework for process evaluations and assessed the context, implementation and mechanisms of impact. Trainers participating in the effectiveness trial were asked to complete a questionnaire at the end of the study. A subsample of the trainers based on the self-reported adherence score was invited to participate in an interview accordingly. We used a thematic analysis to present the data. RESULTS: Thirty-one trainers (100%) completed the questionnaire, and seven agreed to participate in an interview. Although adherence gradually decreased over the volleyball season, most trainers reported partially adhere with the program until the end of the study. The main themes included factors associated with the (1) VolleyVeilig Youth program, (2) trainer, (3) players, and (4) volleyball club. CONCLUSION: Although (partial) adherence to the VolleyVeilig Youth program was high in this study, implementation strategies must be developed to target the barriers reported by the trainers before the program can be successfully implemented nationwide in the Netherlands.

How the Plants for Joints multidisciplinary lifestyle intervention achieved its effects: a mixed methods process evaluation.

BACKGROUND: Plants for Joints (PFJ) is a multidisciplinary intervention centered around a whole-food plant-based diet, physical activity, and sleep and stress management. The PFJ intervention successfully improved disease activity and symptoms in people with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) or osteoarthritis (OA), respectively, and metabolic health. To investigate how these effects were achieved a mixed methods process evaluation was conducted to understand the context, implementation, and mechanism of impact of the PFJ intervention. Also, the relationship between degree of implementation and lifestyle changes was explored. METHODS: Quantitative and qualitative data were collected across the evaluation domains context (i.e. reach), implementation (i.e. recruitment and delivery), and mechanism of impact (i.e. responsiveness) of both the participants and coaches (incl. dietitians, sport coaches) according to the UK MRC guidelines for process evaluations. Data was collected from the participants via focus groups and questionnaires after the intervention, and interviews with coaches. Qualitative data were analyzed thematically, and quantitative data were assessed with descriptive statistics and linear regression analyses. Degree of implementation was quantified using a theory-driven implementation index score composed of different process evaluation constructs. RESULTS: Of the 155 participants who participated in the PFJ intervention, 106 (68%) took part in the questionnaire and 34 (22%) attended a focus group. Participants felt the intervention was complete, coherent, and would recommend the intervention to others (mean score 9.2 (SD 1.4) out of 10). Participants felt heard and empowered to take control of their lifestyle and health outcomes. Components perceived as most useful were self-monitoring, social support, practical and theoretical information, and (individual) guidance by the multidisciplinary team. Participants perceived the intervention as feasible, and many indicated it effectively improved their health outcomes. In an explorative analysis there was no significant difference in healthy lifestyle changes across implementation index score groups. CONCLUSION: This process evaluation offers important insights into why the PFJ intervention works and how the intervention can be optimized for future implementation. Results indicating the intervention's high satisfaction, feasibility, and perceived effectiveness, further support the use of plant-based lifestyle interventions as an additional treatment option for patients with RA, OA, or other chronic diseases. TRIAL REGISTRATION: International Clinical Trial Registry Platform numbers: NL7800, NL7801, and NL7802, all registered 17-06-2019.

Qualitative multi-stakeholder evaluation of the adoption, implementation and sustainment of the school-based dietary intervention "Jump-in".

BACKGROUND: Comprehensive school-based programs applying the WHO Health Promoting School Model have the potential to initiate and sustain behavior change and impact health. However, since they often include intervention efforts on a school's policies, physical environment, curriculum, health care and involving parents and communities, they significantly 'intrude' on a complex system that is aimed primarily at education, not health promotion. More insights into and concrete strategies are therefore needed regarding their adoption, implementation, and sustainment processes to address the challenge to sustainable implementation of HPS initiatives in a primarily educational setting. This study consequently evaluates adoption, implementation and sustainment processes of Amsterdam's Jump-in healthy nutrition HPS intervention from a multi-stakeholder perspective. METHODS: We conducted semi-structured interviews and focus groups with all involved stakeholders (n = 131), i.e., Jump-in health promotion professionals (n = 5), school principals (n = 7), at-school Jump-in coordinators (n = 7), teachers (n = 20), parents (n = 50, 9 groups) and children (n = 42, 7 groups) from 10 primary schools that enrolled in Jump-in in the school year 2016-2017. Included schools had a higher prevalence of overweight and/or obesity than the Dutch average and they were all located in Amsterdam's low-SEP neighborhoods. Data were analyzed using a directed content analysis, in which the Determinants of Innovation Model was used for obtaining theory-based predetermined codes, supplemented with new codes emerging from the data. RESULTS: During intervention adoption, all stakeholders emphasized the importance of parental support, and accompanying workshops and promotional materials. Additionally, parents and teachers indicated that a shared responsibility for children's health and nuanced framing of health messages were important. During implementation, all stakeholders needed clear guidelines and support structures. Teachers and children highlighted the importance of peer influence, social norms, and uniform application of guidelines. School staff also found further tailoring of the intervention and dealing with financial constraints important. For long-term intervention sustainment, incorporating the intervention policies into the school statutes was crucial according to health promotion professionals. CONCLUSIONS: This qualitative evaluation provides valuable insights into factors influencing the adoption, implementation, and sustainment processes of dietary interventions, such as the importance of transparent and consistent intervention guidelines, clear communication regarding the rationale behind intervention guidelines, and, stakeholders' involvement in decision-making.

Factors related to the implementation and scale-up of physical activity interventions in Ireland: a qualitative study with policy makers, funders, researchers and practitioners.

BACKGROUND: Current literature reports a gap between development of effective interventions to promote physical activity and the systematic uptake into real-world settings. Factors relating to implementation and scale-up of physical activity interventions have been examined, however the perspectives of multiple stakeholders from different domains are not well researched. The purpose of this study was to examine the perceived factors related to physical activity intervention implementation and scale-up in different domains from different stakeholders on the island of Ireland. METHODS: Practitioners, researchers, funders and policy makers in Ireland were invited to take part in a semi-structured interview exploring factors related to the implementation and scale-up of eleven different physical activity interventions. A thematic analysis was conducted to identify factors related to the implementation and scale-up of the included interventions. The data collection and analysis were guided by the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research. RESULTS: Thirty-eight participants took part in the interviews which identified factors related to 1) intervention planning and practical considerations; 2) organisational structures, staffing and resources related to delivery; 3) reflection, evaluation and updating of the intervention; and 4) practical consideration related to scale-up. Furthermore, participants referred to the ongoing commitment, engagement, and support needed throughout the implementation process. CONCLUSIONS: Future research and practice needs to consider how different factors are experienced at different implementation stages and by the different stakeholder groups involved. The findings highlight multiple inter-related factors that influence the implementation and scale-up of physical activity interventions, but also identifies many strategies that can be utilised to aid future successes.

How European Fans in Training (EuroFIT), a lifestyle change program for men delivered in football clubs, achieved its effect: a mixed methods process evaluation embedded in a randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: A randomised trial of European Fans in Training (EuroFIT), a 12-week healthy lifestyle program delivered in 15 professional football clubs in the Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, and the United Kingdom, successfully increased physical activity and improved diet but did not reduce sedentary time. To guide future implementation, this paper investigates how those effects were achieved. We ask: 1) how was EuroFIT implemented? 2) what were the processes through which outcomes were achieved? METHODS: We analysed qualitative data implementation notes, observations of 29 of 180 weekly EuroFIT deliveries, semi-structured interviews with 16 coaches and 15 club representatives, and 30 focus group discussions with participants (15 post-program and 15 after 12 months). We descriptively analysed quantitative data on recruitment, attendance at sessions and logs of use of the technologies and survey data on the views of participants at baseline, post program and after 12 months. We used a triangulation protocol to investigate agreement between data from difference sources, organised around meeting 15 objectives within the two research questions. RESULTS: We successfully recruited clubs, coaches and men to EuroFIT though the draw of the football club seemed stronger in the UK and Portugal. Advertising that emphasized getting fitter, club-based deliveries, and not 'standing out' worked and attendance and fidelity were good, so that coaches in all countries were able to deliver EuroFIT flexibly as intended. Coaches in all 15 clubs facilitated the use of behaviour change techniques and interaction between men, which together enhanced motivation. Participants found it harder to change sedentary time than physical activity and diet. Fitting changes into daily routines, planning for setbacks and recognising the personal benefit of behaviour change were important to maintain changes. Bespoke technologies were valued, but technological hitches frustrated participants. CONCLUSION: EuroFIT was delivered as planned by trained club coaches working flexibly in all countries. It worked as expected to attract men and support initiation and maintenance of changes in physical activity and diet but the use of bespoke, unstable, technologies was frustrating. Future deliveries should eliminate the focus on sedentary time and should use only proven technologies to support self-monitoring and social interaction. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN81935608, registered 16/06/2015.

The evaluation of an online nurse-assisted eye-screening tool in older adults receiving home healthcare.

PURPOSE: To investigate the agreement between an online nurse-assisted eye-screening tool and reference tests in older adults receiving home healthcare and to collect user experiences. METHODS: Older adults (65+) receiving home healthcare were included. Home healthcare nurses assisted in administering the eye-screening tool at participants' homes. Approximately 2 weeks later, a researcher administered reference tests at participants' homes. Experiences from participants and home healthcare nurses were collected. Agreement in outcomes (distance and near visual acuity, with the latter being measured using two different optotypes, and macular problems) between the eye-screening tool and reference clinical testing was compared. A difference of less than ±0.15 logMAR was considered acceptable. RESULTS: A total of 40 participants were included. Here, we describe the results for the right eye; results for the left eye were similar. The mean difference between the eye-screening tool and reference tests for distance visual acuity was 0.02 logMAR. The mean difference between the eye-screening tool and reference tests using two different optotypes for near visual acuity was 0.06 and 0.03 logMAR, respectively. The majority of the individual data points were within the ±0.15 logMAR threshold (75%, 51% and 58%, respectively). The agreement between tests for macular problems was 75%. Participants and home healthcare nurses were generally satisfied with the eye-screening tool, although remarks for further improvements were made. CONCLUSIONS: The eye-screening tool is promising for nurse-assisted eye screening in older adults receiving home healthcare, with the mostly satisfactory agreement. After implementing the eye-screening tool in practice, cost-effectiveness needs to be investigated.

Effects of a comprehensive lifestyle intervention on cardiovascular health: the TANSNIP-PESA trial.

AIMS: To investigate the effectiveness of a 3-year worksite lifestyle intervention on cardiovascular metrics and to study whether outcomes are influenced by baseline subclinical atherosclerosis (SA) by non-invasive imaging. METHODS AND RESULTS: A randomized controlled trial was performed to compare a lifestyle intervention with standard of care in asymptomatic middle-aged subjects, stratified by SA. The intervention consisted of nine motivational interviews during the first year, followed by three further sessions between Years 1 and 3. The primary outcome was the change in a pre-specified adaptation of the Fuster-BEWAT score (Blood pressure, Exercise, Weight, Alimentation, and Tobacco) between baseline and follow-up Years 1-3. A total of 1020 participants (mean age 50 ± 4 years) were enrolled, of whom 510 were randomly assigned to the intervention and 510 to the control group. The baseline adapted Fuster-BEWAT score was 16.2 ± 3.7 points in the intervention group and 16.5 ± 3.5 points in the control group. At Year 1, the score improved significantly in intervention participants compared with controls [estimate 0.83 (95% CI 0.52-1.15) points]. However, intervention effectiveness decreased to non-significant levels at Year 3 [0.24 (95% CI -0.10 to 0.59) points]. Over the 3-year period, the intervention was effective in participants having low baseline SA [0.61 (95% CI 0.30-0.93) points] but not in those with high baseline SA [0.19 (95% CI -0.26 to 0.64) points]. CONCLUSION: In middle-aged asymptomatic adults, a lifestyle intervention was associated with a significant improvement in cardiovascular health and behavioural metrics. The effect attenuated after 1 year as the intensity of the intervention was reduced. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT02561065).

Barriers and facilitators influencing the implementation of the occupational health intervention 'Dynamic Work': a qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: Sedentary behavior is associated with an increased risk of morbidity and mortality. To reduce occupational sitting time of office workers, the multi-component intervention 'Dynamic Work' was implemented in a Dutch insurance company. Although the results showed no significant reductions in sitting time, associations were found between higher levels of implementation and reductions in sitting time. Building upon these findings, this qualitative study aimed to identify barriers and facilitators from an organizational perspective for the implementation of Dynamic Work. In addition, we explored differences in barriers and facilitators between departments with a low, middle and high level of implementation. METHODS: In total, eighteen semi-structured interviews were conducted with two Dynamic Work coordinators, three occupational physiotherapists who delivered the intervention, and thirteen department managers. All participants were purposively sampled. The data was coded in Atlas.ti and a thematic analysis was performed guided by The Integrated Checklist of Determinants (TICD). RESULTS: Implementation factors were related to the organization; working culture and financial support facilitated implementation. Factors related to the implementing department mainly hindered implementation, i.e. lack of information at start of the project, late delivery of Dynamic Work equipment, large group sizes, employee's workload and work tasks, and an ongoing reorganization. The facilitating role of managers was experienced as both enabling and hindering. The pre-existing familiarity of the occupational physiotherapists with the departments and alignment amongst the three implementers facilitated implementation. Yet, the non-obligatory nature of the intervention as well as limited availability and technical problems of equipment did not support implementation. CONCLUSIONS: Various barriers and facilitators influenced the implementation of the Dynamic Work intervention, where the key role of the department manager, late delivery of dynamic work equipment and groups sizes varied between low and high implementing departments. These results can contribute to developing and improving implementation strategies in order to increase the effectiveness of future occupational health interventions. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The study protocol was registered on April 14, 2017 in the ClinicalTrials.gov Protocol Registration and Results System under registration number NCT03115645 .

A pragmatic approach for implementation of value-based healthcare in Amsterdam UMC, the Netherlands.

BACKGROUND: The emphasis on implementation of value-based healthcare (VBHC) has increased in the Dutch healthcare system. Yet, the translation of the theoretical principles of VBHC towards actual implementation in daily practice has been rarely described. Our aim is to present a pragmatic step-by-step approach for VBHC implementation, developed and applied in Amsterdam UMC, to share our key elements. The approach may inspire others and can be used as a template for implementing VBHC principles in other hospitals. METHODS: The local approach is developed in a major academic hospital in the Netherlands, based at two locations with 15,000 employees in total. Experience-based co-design is used, building on our learning experiences from implementing VBHC for 14 specific patient groups. The described steps and activities devolved from iterative and participative co-design sessions with various experienced stakeholders involved in the implementation of one or more VBHC pathways. RESULTS: The approach includes five phases; preparation, design (team introduction, outcome selection, action agenda), building (outcome set integration in daily practice), implementation (training, outcome registration and implementation) and the continuous improvement cycle. We described two cases for illustration of the approach; the Cleft Lip and Palate and the Chronic Kidney Disease patient groups. For a good start, involvement of a clinical leader as driving force, ensuring participation of patient representatives and sufficient resources are needed. CONCLUSION: We have experienced that several defining features of the development and implementation of this approach may have contributed to its completeness and applicability. Key elements for success have been organisational readiness and clinical leadership. In conclusion, the approach has provided a first step towards VBHC in our hospital. Further research is needed for evaluation of its effectiveness including impact on value for patients.

Implementing Exercise = Medicine in routine clinical care; needs for an online tool and key decisions for implementation of Exercise = Medicine within two Dutch academic hospitals.

BACKGROUND: There is much evidence to implement physical activity interventions for medical reasons in healthcare settings. However, the prescription of physical activity as a treatment, referring to as 'Exercise is Medicine' (E = M) is currently mostly absent in routine hospital care in The Netherlands. To support E = M prescription by clinicians in hospitals, this study aimed: (1) to develop an E = M-tool for physical activity advice and referrals to facilitate the E = M prescription in hospital settings; and (2) to provide an E = M decision guide on key decisions for implementation to prepare for E = M prescription in hospital care. METHODS: A mixed method design was used employing a questionnaire and face-to-face interviews with clinicians, lifestyle coaches and hospital managers, a patient panel and stakeholders to assess the needs regarding an E = M-tool and key decisions for implementation of E = M. Based on the needs assessment, a digital E = M-tool was developed. The key decisions informed the development of an E = M decision guide. RESULTS: An online supportive tool for E = M was developed for two academic hospitals. Based on the needs assessment, linked to the different patients' electronic medical records and tailored to the two local settings (University Medical Center Groningen, Amsterdam University Medical Centers). The E = M-tool existed of a tool algorithm, including patient characteristics assessed with a digital questionnaire (age, gender, PA, BMI, medical diagnosis, motivation to change physical activity and preference to discuss physical activity with their doctor) set against norm values. The digital E = M-tool provided an individual E = M-prescription for patients and referral options to local PA interventions in- and outside the hospital. An E = M decision guide was developed to support the implementation of E = M prescription in hospital care. CONCLUSIONS: This study provided insight into E = M-tool development and the E = M decision-making to support E = M prescription and facilitate tailoring towards local E = M treatment options, using strong stakeholder participation. Outcomes may serve as an example for other decision support guides and interventions aimed at E = M implementation.

Barriers and facilitators to implementing community-based physical activity interventions: a qualitative systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Over the past decade several physical activity (PA) interventions have been shown to be efficacious in a controlled research setting, however there is a continued lack of evidence for how to successfully implement these PA interventions in real-world settings such as the community. This review aims to explore the barriers and facilitators that affect the implementation of community-based PA interventions and make recommendations to improve implementation from the included studies. METHODS: A systematic literature search of EBSCOhost, Scopus, PUBMED and Web of Science was conducted to identify articles that reported qualitative data on the implementation factors of community-based interventions where PA was a primary outcome. Data were extracted using the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) as a guide. Implementation factors and recommendations were then mapped onto the 5 domains of the CFIR and synthesised thematically. RESULTS: From 495 articles, a total of 13 eligible studies were identified, with 6 studies using a mixed methods approach, and 7 reporting qualitative methods only. There were 82 implementation factors identified, including 37 barriers and 45 facilitators, and a further 26 recommendations from the papers across all 5 domains of the CFIR. More barriers than facilitators were identified within the CFIR domain inner setting, in contrast to all other domains where facilitator numbers outweighed barriers. CONCLUSIONS: This review identified many facilitators and barriers of implementing physical activity interventions in the community. A key finding of this review was the impact of implementation strategies on successful implementation of community PA interventions. From the evidence, it was clear that many barriers to implementation could have been negated or reduced by an implementation plan in which several strategies are embedded. The findings of this review also suggest more attention to individual' skills and involvement is needed to improve self-efficacy and knowledge. The role of individuals across all organisational levels, from providers to leaders, can impact on the implementation of an intervention and its success. TRIAL REGISTRATION: PROSPERO - CRD42020153821 .

Contributions of changes in physical activity, sedentary time, diet and body weight to changes in cardiometabolic risk.

BACKGROUND: Increased physical activity (PA), reduced time spent sedentary (SED), healthier diet and reduced body weight may all have a positive impact on cardiometabolic risk. The relative importance of change in each of these variables on cardiometabolic risk, however, is unclear. We therefore sought to investigate the relative contributions of changes in PA, SED, diet and body weight on cardiometabolic risk. METHODS: This is a secondary analysis of data collected from the EuroFIT randomised controlled trial, which was a 12-week group-based lifestyle intervention for overweight middle-aged men delivered by coaches in football club stadia aiming to improve PA, SED, diet, and body weight. PA and SED were assessed by accelerometry, diet using the Dietary Instrument for Nutrition Education (DINE). An overall cardiometabolic risk score was derived from combining z-scores for glucose, HbA1c, insulin, lipids and blood pressure. In total, 707 men (from the overall cohort of 1113) with complete data for these variables at baseline and 12-month follow-up were included in the multivariable linear regression analyses. RESULTS: In multivariable analyses, change in number of steps (explaining 5.1% of R2) and dietary factors (less alcohol, fatty and sugary food, and more fruit and vegetables) (together explaining 4.5% of R2), but not changes in standing time or SED, were significantly associated with change in body weight. Changes in number of steps (R2 = 1.7%), fatty food score (R2 = 2.4%), and sugary food score (R2 = 0.4%) were significantly associated with change in cardiometabolic risk score in univariable models. However, in multivariable models which included changes in weight as well as changes in steps and dietary variables, change in weight explained a substantially larger proportion of the change in cardiometabolic risk score, explaining 14.1% of R2 (out of an overall model R2 of 19.0%). When baseline (as well as change) values were also included in the model, 38.8% of R2 for change in cardiometabolic risk score was explained overall, with 14.1% of R2 still explained by change in weight. CONCLUSION: Change in body weight, together with baseline cardiometabolic risk explained most of the change in cardiometabolic risk. Thus, the benefits of increasing physical activity and improving diet on cardiometabolic risk appear to act largely via an effect on changes in body weight. TRIAL REGISTRATION: International Standard Randomised Controlled Trials, ISRCTN-81935608. Registered 06052015. https://www.isrctn.com/ISRCTN81935608?q=&filters=recruitmentCountry:Portugal&sort=&offset=7&totalResults=92&page=1&pageSize=10&searchType=basic-search.

What hinders and helps academics to conduct Dissemination and Implementation (D&I) research in the field of nutrition and physical activity? An international perspective.

BACKGROUND: Ineffective research-practice translation is a major challenge to population health improvement. This paper presents an international perspective on the barriers and facilitators associated with the uptake of and engagement in Dissemination and Implementation (D&I) research in the fields of physical activity and nutrition. METHODS: A mixed methods study involving participants from the International Society for Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity (ISBNPA) network. Participants completed an online survey (May-July 2018) and/or participated in a focus group during the annual ISBNPA conference (June 2018). Descriptive statistics were generated for quantitative online and pre-focus group survey data. Fisher's exact tests investigated associations of (i) length of time in academia, (ii) career stage and (iii) country of work, and agreement with 'perceptions of D&I'. Qualitative data were analysed thematically. RESULTS: In total, 141 participants responded to the survey (76% female, 21% aged 35-39 years, 14 countries represented) and 25 participated in focus groups (n = 3). Participants self-identified as having knowledge (48%), skills (53%) and experience supporting others (40%) to conduct D&I research. The majority (96%) perceived D&I was important, with 66% having organizational support for D&I, yet only 52% reported prioritizing D&I research. Perceptions of D&I differed by length of time in academia, career stage and country of work. Barriers included: (i) lack of D&I expertise; (ii) lack of organisational support/value for D&I; (iii) embedded scientific beliefs/culture; (iv) methodological challenges with D&I research; (v) funding/publishing priorities and; (vi) academic performance structures. Facilitators included: (i) increased presence/value of D&I; (ii) collective advocacy; (iii) organisational support for D&I; (iv) recruitment of D&I scientists and; (v) restructure of academic performance models, funding/publishing criteria. CONCLUSIONS: Individual, organisational and system-wide factors hindered academics' engagement with and support for D&I research, which was perceived to reduce opportunities for research-practice translation. Factors were mostly consistent across countries and individual career stages/time spent in academia. Embedding D&I early within academic training, and system-wide reorientation of academic performance and funding structures to promote and facilitate D&I research, are some of the necessary actions to reduce the research-practice gap. Consistent with public health more broadly, these changes are long overdue in the fields of physical activity and nutrition.

Five-year cost-effectiveness analysis of the European Fans in Training (EuroFIT) physical activity intervention for men versus no intervention.

OBJECTIVES: Increasing physical activity reduces the risk of chronic illness including Type 2 diabetes, cardiovascular disease and certain types of cancer. Lifestyle interventions can increase physical activity but few successfully engage men. This study aims to investigate the 5 year cost-effectiveness of EuroFIT, a program to improve physical activity tailored specifically for male football (soccer) fans compared to a no intervention comparison group. METHODS: We developed a Markov cohort model in which the impact of improving physical activity on five chronic health conditions (colorectal cancer, Type 2 diabetes, coronary heart disease, stroke and depression) and mortality was modelled. We estimated costs from a societal perspective and expressed benefits as quality adjusted life years (QALYs). We obtained data from a 4-country (England, Netherlands, Portugal and Norway) pragmatic randomised controlled trial evaluating EuroFIT, epidemiological and cohort studies, and meta-analyses. We performed deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses to assess the impact of uncertainty in the model's parameter values on the cost-effectiveness results. We used Monte Carlo simulations to estimate uncertainty and presented this using cost-effectiveness acceptability curves (CEACs). We tested the robustness of the base case analysis using five scenario analyses. RESULTS: Average costs over 5 years per person receiving EuroFIT were €14,663 and per person receiving no intervention €14,598. Mean QALYs over 5 years were 4.05 per person for EuroFIT and 4.04 for no intervention. Thus, the average incremental cost per person receiving EuroFIT was €65 compared to no intervention, while the average QALY gain was 0.01. This resulted in an ICER of €5206 per QALY gained. CEACs show that the probability of EuroFIT being cost-effective compared to no intervention is 0.53, 0.56 and 0.58 at thresholds of €10,000, €22,000 and €34,000 per QALY gained, respectively. When using a time horizon of 10 years, the results suggest that EuroFIT is more effective and less expensive compared to (i.e. dominant over) no intervention with a probability of cost-effectiveness of 0.63 at a threshold of €22,000 per QALY gained. CONCLUSIONS: We conclude the EuroFIT intervention is not cost-effective compared to no intervention over a period of 5 years from a societal perspective, but is more effective and less expensive (i.e. dominant) after 10 years. We thus suggest that EuroFIT can potentially improve public health in a cost-effective manner in the long term.

Scaling up population health interventions from decision to sustainability - a window of opportunity? A qualitative view from policy-makers.

BACKGROUND: While known efficacious preventive health interventions exist, the current capacity to scale up these interventions is limited. In recent years, much attention has focussed on developing frameworks and methods for scale-up yet, in practice, the pathway for scale-up is seldom linear and may be highly dependent on contextual circumstances. Few studies have examined the process of scaling up from decision to implementation nor examined the sustainability of scaled-up interventions. This study explores decision-makers' perceptions from real-world scaled-up case studies to examine how scale-up decisions were made and describe enablers of successful scale-up and sustainability. METHODS: This qualitative study included 29 interviews conducted with purposively sampled key Australian policy-makers, practitioners and researchers experienced in scale-up. Semi-structured interview questions obtained information regarding case studies of scaled-up interventions. The Framework Analysis method was used as the primary method of analysis of the interview data to inductively generate common and divergent themes within qualitative data across cases. RESULTS: A total of 31 case studies of public health interventions were described by interview respondents based on their experiences. According to the interviewees' perceptions, decisions to scale up commonly occurred either opportunistically, when funding became available, or when a deliberate decision was made and funding allocated. The latter scenario was more common when the intervention aligned with specific political or strategic goals. Decisions to scale up were driven by a variety of key actors such as politicians, senior policy-makers and practitioners in the health system. Drivers of a successful scale-up process included good governance, clear leadership, and adequate resourcing and expertise. Establishing accountability structures and appropriate engagement mechanisms to encourage the uptake of interventions were also key enablers. Sustainability was influenced by evidence of impact as well as good acceptability among the general or target population. CONCLUSIONS: Much like Kingdon's Multiple Streams Theory of 'policy windows', there is a conceptually similar 'window for scale-up', driven by a complex interplay of factors such as political need, strategic context, funding and key actors. Researchers and policy-makers need to consider scalability from the outset and prepare for when the window for scale-up opens. Decision-makers need to provide longer term funding for scale-up to facilitate longer term sustainability and build on the resources already invested for the scale-up process.

Intervention Scalability Assessment Tool: A decision support tool for health policy makers and implementers.

BACKGROUND: Promising health interventions tested in pilot studies will only achieve population-wide impact if they are implemented at scale across communities and health systems. Scaling up effective health interventions is vital as not doing so denies the community the most effective services and programmes. However, there remains a paucity of practical tools to assess the suitability of health interventions for scale-up. The Intervention Scalability Assessment Tool (ISAT) was developed to support policy-makers and practitioners to make systematic assessments of the suitability of health interventions for scale-up. METHODS: The ISAT was developed over three stages; the first stage involved a literature review to identify similar tools and frameworks that could be used to guide scalability assessments, and expert input to develop draft ISAT content. In the second stage, the draft ISAT tool was tested with end users. The third stage involved revising and re-testing the ISAT with end users to further refine the language and structure of the final ISAT. RESULTS: A variety of information and sources of evidence should be used to complete the ISAT. The ISAT consists of three parts. Part A: 'setting the scene' requires consideration of the context in which the intervention is being considered for scale-up and consists of five domains, as follows: (1) the problem; (2) the intervention; (3) strategic/political context; (4) evidence of effectiveness; and (5) intervention costs and benefits. Part B asks users to assess the potential implementation and scale-up requirements within five domains, namely (1) fidelity and adaptation; (2) reach and acceptability; (3) delivery setting and workforce; (4) implementation infrastructure; and (5) sustainability. Part C generates a graphical representation of the strengths and weaknesses of the readiness of the proposed intervention for scale-up. Users are also prompted for a recommendation as to whether the intervention (1) is recommended for scale-up, (2) is promising but needs further information before scaling up, or (3) does not yet merit scale-up. CONCLUSION: The ISAT fills an important gap in applied scalability assessment and can become a critical decision support tool for policy-makers and practitioners when selecting health interventions for scale-up. Although the ISAT is designed to be a health policy and practitioner tool, it can also be used by researchers in the design of research to fill important evidence gaps.

Correction: The effect of a programme to improve men's sedentary time and physical activity: The European Fans in Training (EuroFIT) randomised controlled trial.

[This corrects the article DOI: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1002736.].

The effect of a programme to improve men's sedentary time and physical activity: The European Fans in Training (EuroFIT) randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Reducing sitting time as well as increasing physical activity in inactive people is beneficial for their health. This paper investigates the effectiveness of the European Fans in Training (EuroFIT) programme to improve physical activity and sedentary time in male football fans, delivered through the professional football setting. METHODS AND FINDINGS: A total of 1,113 men aged 30-65 with self-reported body mass index (BMI) ≥27 kg/m2 took part in a randomised controlled trial in 15 professional football clubs in England, the Netherlands, Norway, and Portugal. Recruitment was between September 19, 2015, and February 2, 2016. Participants consented to study procedures and provided usable activity monitor baseline data. They were randomised, stratified by club, to either the EuroFIT intervention or a 12-month waiting list comparison group. Follow-up measurement was post-programme and 12 months after baseline. EuroFIT is a 12-week, group-based programme delivered by coaches in football club stadia in 12 weekly 90-minute sessions. Weekly sessions aimed to improve physical activity, sedentary time, and diet and maintain changes long term. A pocket-worn device (SitFIT) allowed self-monitoring of sedentary time and daily steps, and a game-based app (MatchFIT) encouraged between-session social support. Primary outcome (objectively measured sedentary time and physical activity) measurements were obtained for 83% and 85% of intervention and comparison participants. Intention-to-treat analyses showed a baseline-adjusted mean difference in sedentary time at 12 months of -1.6 minutes/day (97.5% confidence interval [CI], -14.3-11.0; p = 0.77) and in step counts of 678 steps/day (97.5% CI, 309-1.048; p < 0.001) in favor of the intervention. There were significant improvements in diet, weight, well-being, self-esteem, vitality, and biomarkers of cardiometabolic health in favor of the intervention group, but not in quality of life. There was a 0.95 probability of EuroFIT being cost-effective compared with the comparison group if society is willing to pay £1.50 per extra step/day, a maximum probability of 0.61 if society is willing to pay £1,800 per minute less sedentary time/day, and 0.13 probability if society is willing to pay £30,000 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY). It was not possible to blind participants to group allocation. Men attracted to the programme already had quite high levels of physical activity at baseline (8,372 steps/day), which may have limited room for improvement. Although participants came from across the socioeconomic spectrum, a majority were well educated and in paid work. There was an increase in recent injuries and in upper and lower joint pain scores post-programme. In addition, although the five-level EuroQoL questionnaire (EQ-5D-5L) is now the preferred measure for cost-effectiveness analyses across Europe, baseline scores were high (0.93), suggesting a ceiling effect for QALYs. CONCLUSION: Participation in EuroFIT led to improvements in physical activity, diet, body weight, and biomarkers of cardiometabolic health, but not in sedentary time at 12 months. Within-trial analysis suggests it is not cost-effective in the short term for QALYs due to a ceiling effect in quality of life. Nevertheless, decision-makers may consider the incremental cost for increase in steps worth the investment. TRIAL REGISTRATION: International Standard Randomised Controlled Trials, ISRCTN-81935608.

Adoption, implementation and sustainability of school-based physical activity and sedentary behaviour interventions in real-world settings: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Globally, many children fail to meet the World Health Organization's physical activity and sedentary behaviour guidelines. Schools are an ideal setting to intervene, yet despite many interventions in this setting, success when delivered under real-world conditions or at scale is limited. This systematic review aims to i) identify which implementation models are used in school-based physical activity effectiveness, dissemination, and/or implementation trials, and ii) identify factors associated with the adoption, implementation and sustainability of school-based physical activity interventions in real-world settings. METHODS: The review followed PRISMA guidelines and included a systematic search of seven databases from January 1st, 2000 to July 31st, 2018: MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, SPORTDiscus, PsycINFO, CENTRAL, and ERIC. A forward citation search of included studies using Google Scholar was performed on the 21st of January 2019 including articles published until the end of 2018. Study inclusion criteria: (i) a primary outcome to increase physical activity and/or decrease sedentary behaviour among school-aged children and/or adolescents; (ii) intervention delivery within school settings, (iii) use of implementation models to plan or interpret study results; and (iv) interventions delivered under real-world conditions. EXCLUSION CRITERIA: (i) efficacy trials; (ii) studies applying or testing school-based physical activity policies, and; (iii) studies targeting special schools or pre-school and/or kindergarten aged children. RESULTS: 27 papers comprising 17 unique interventions were included. Fourteen implementation models (e.g., RE-AIM, Rogers' Diffusion of Innovations, Precede Proceed model), were applied across 27 papers. Implementation models were mostly used to interpret results (n = 9), for planning evaluation and interpreting results (n = 8), for planning evaluation (n = 6), for intervention design (n = 4), or for a combination of designing the intervention and interpreting results (n = 3). We identified 269 factors related to barriers (n = 93) and facilitators (n = 176) for the adoption (n = 7 studies), implementation (n = 14 studies) and sustainability (n = 7 studies) of interventions. CONCLUSIONS: Implementation model use was predominately centered on the interpretation of results and analyses, with few examples of use across all study phases as a planning tool and to understand results. This lack of implementation models applied may explain the limited success of interventions when delivered under real-world conditions or at scale. TRIAL REGISTRATION: PROSPERO (CRD42018099836).