Trial reportBMC public health2017
CONSORT to community: translation of an RCT to a large-scale community intervention and learnings from evaluation of the upscaled program.
Trial report in BMC public health, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.
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.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Smoking Cessation Programs Are Less Effective in Smokers with Low Socioeconomic Status Even When Financial Incentives for Quitting Smoking Are Offered-A Community-Randomized Smoking Cessation Trial in Denmark.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2022Trial
- Trial
- Treating Childhood Obesity: Building and Evaluating Evidence-Based Models of Integrated Care.Journal of the Endocrine Society · 2025Review
- A bibliographic review of sustainability research output and investment in 10 leading public health journals across three time periods.Public health in practice (Oxford, England) · 2023Review
- Translation of two healthy eating and active living support programs for parents of 2-6 year old children: a parallel partially randomised preference trial protocol (the 'time for healthy habits' trial).BMC public health · 2020Article
- Enrolment of families with overweight children into a program aimed at reducing childhood obesity with and without a weight criterion: a natural experiment.BMC public health · 2019Article
- Review of Short-Form Questions for the Evaluation of a Diet, Physical Activity, and Sedentary Behaviour Intervention in a Community Program Targeting Vulnerable Australian Children.Children (Basel, Switzerland) · 2018Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundTranslation encompasses the continuum from clinical efficacy to widespread adoption within the healthcare service and ultimately routine clinical practice. The Parenting, Eating and Activity for Child Health (PEACH™) program has previously demonstrated clinical effectiveness in the management of child obesity, and has been recently implemented as a large-scale community intervention in Queensland, Australia. This paper aims to describe the translation of the evaluation framework from a randomised controlled trial (RCT) to large-scale community intervention (PEACH™ QLD). Tensions between RCT paradigm and implementation research will be discussed along with lived evaluation challenges, responses to overcome these, and key learnings for future evaluation conducted at scale.
methodsThe translation of evaluation from PEACH™ RCT to the large-scale community intervention PEACH™ QLD is described. While the CONSORT Statement was used to report findings from two previous RCTs, the REAIM framework was more suitable for the evaluation of upscaled delivery of the PEACH™ program. Evaluation of PEACH™ QLD was undertaken during the project delivery period from 2013 to 2016.
resultsExperiential learnings from conducting the evaluation of PEACH™ QLD to the described evaluation framework are presented for the purposes of informing the future evaluation of upscaled programs. Evaluation changes in response to real-time changes in the delivery of the PEACH™ QLD Project were necessary at stages during the project term. Key evaluation challenges encountered included the collection of complete evaluation data from a diverse and geographically dispersed workforce and the systematic collection of process evaluation data in real time to support program changes during the project.
conclusionsEvaluation of large-scale community interventions in the real world is challenging and divergent from RCTs which are rigourously evaluated within a more tightly-controlled clinical research setting. Constructs explored in an RCT are inadequate in describing the enablers and barriers of upscaled community program implementation. Methods for data collection, analysis and reporting also require consideration. We present a number of experiential reflections and suggestions for the successful evaluation of future upscaled community programs which are scarcely reported in the literature. TRIALS REGISTRATION: PEACH™ QLD was retrospectively registered with the Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry on 28 February 2017 (ACTRN12617000315314).
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.