ArticleBMC public health2017
Evaluating the impact of a walking program in a disadvantaged area: using the RE-AIM framework by mixed methods.
Article in BMC public health, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. It is linked to trial NCT02857127 (Promoting Physical Activity for Vulnerable Adults and Elderly People), which is not on this map. Cited by 10 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Promoting Physical Activity for Vulnerable Adults and Elderly People: Evaluation of a Walking Program in Primary Care Settings
Who cites it
10 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Educational interventions for physical activity among Brazilian adults: systematic review.Revista de saude publica · 2021Pooled it
- A systematic review of the use and reporting of evaluation frameworks within evaluations of physical activity interventions.The international journal of behavioral nutrition and physical activity · 2020Pooled it
- Testing the effectiveness of a health intervention that manipulates the social environment at active leisure events in Scotland.Journal of public health research · 2025Article
- The CHESS Protocol: A Mixed-Methods Evaluation of an HPV Screening Intervention for Women Living With HIV in Nigeria.International journal of public health · 2025Article
- Can physical activity measurement alone improve objectively-measured physical activity in primary care?: A systematic review and meta-analysis.Preventive medicine reports · 2020Review
- Observational
- Supervised training in primary care units but not self-directed physical activity lowered cardiovascular risk in Brazilian low-income patients: a controlled trial.BMC public health · 2019Article
- Article
- RE-AIM Planning and Evaluation Framework: Adapting to New Science and Practice With a 20-Year Review.Frontiers in public health · 2019Review
- Correction to: Evaluating the impact of a walking program in a disadvantaged area: using the RE-AIM framework by mixed methods.BMC public health · 2017Article
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe positive health impact of physical activity (PA) is well known, yet a large proportion of the world's population remains sedentary. General PA programs are common as health promotion initiatives. However, effectiveness evaluations of such PA programs on individual and organizational aspects, which could inform the decision-making process of public health bodies are still lacking, particularly in the most socially disadvantaged areas, where health promotion schemes are particularly needed. The aim of this study was to assess the effectiveness of a Guided Walking Program in a high social vulnerability context.
methodsA quasi-experimental, mixed methods study was conducted. The program had a duration of 6 months and a 6-month follow-up period after the intervention. Session frequency was five times a week, where sessions consisted of supervised PA combined with educational sessions. The Reach, Effectiveness, Adoption, Implementation and Maintenance (RE-AIM) framework was followed to assess the program. The International Physical Activity Questionnaire (IPAQ) and accelerometers were used to measure levels of PA. Focus groups were conducted to gain a comprehensive insight on the implementation domain.
resultsMost subjects in the intervention (IG) (n = 74) and control (CG) (n = 74) groups were female (IG:90.5%; CG:95.9%), aged 18-49 years (IG:44.6%; CG:43.2%), received less than 1 minimum wage (IG:74.3%; CG:83.7%) and had 0-4 years of formal education (IG:52.1%; CG:46.1%). The reach of the intervention was 0.3%. The IG showed increased levels of PA at post-intervention and 6-month follow-up. However, the difference between groups was not statistically significant. Adoption data revealed that 89.5% of the professionals in the Primary Health Care Center (health center) team perceived the benefits of the program for the population. The program was independently promoted by the health center team for a further 4 months post-intervention. The qualitative data revealed that the program was discontinued due to participants' low adherence and human resource limitations in the unit's operational dynamics.
conclusionsA health promotion intervention in a socially deprived setting faces challenges but can be effective and feasible to implement. The present study informs the development of future health promotion initiatives in this context.
trial registrationNCT02857127 . Registered: 30 July 2016 (retrospectively registered).
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.