Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34674676›Full record

ArticleBMC public health2021

A RE-AIM evaluation in early adopters to iteratively improve the online BeUpstanding™ program supporting workers to sit less and move more.

Genevieve N Healy, Elisabeth A H Winkler, Ana D Goode

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC public health, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed
6.1field-weighted citation impact, top 4% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

9 citing papers in PubMed, 24 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. National implementation trial of BeUpstanding™: an online initiative for workers to sit less and move more.The international journal of behavioral nutrition and physical activity · 2024
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Observational
  8. Article
  9. Applying a User Centred Design Approach to Optimise a Workplace Initiative for Wide-Scale Implementation.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2022
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Genevieve N HealyThe University of Queensland, School of Public Health, 288 Herston Rd, HERSTON QLD, Brisbane, 4006, Australia. g.healy@uq.edu.au.
Elisabeth A H WinklerThe University of Queensland, School of Public Health, 288 Herston Rd, HERSTON QLD, Brisbane, 4006, Australia.
Ana D GoodeThe University of Queensland, School of Public Health, 288 Herston Rd, HERSTON QLD, Brisbane, 4006, Australia.
University of Queensland · AU

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe web-based BeUpstanding program supports desk workers to sit less and move more. Successfully translated from a research-delivered intervention, BeUpstanding has gone through iterative development and evaluation phases in preparation for wide-scale implementation. In the third planned "early-adopters" phase (01/09/2017-11/06/2019), the program was made freely-available online. An integrated delivery and evaluation platform was also developed to enable workplace champions to run and evaluate the intervention within their work team independent of researcher support. Using the RE-AIM (Reach, Effectiveness, Adoption, Implementation, Maintenance) framework, this study reports on the extent to which the program and processes were "fit-for-purpose" for a national implementation trial across the indicators of uptake (reach and adoption), implementation and engagement, and effectiveness for behaviour change.

methodsData were collected via the online surveys embedded in the program and through program access analytics. Descriptive data (with linearized variance for the clustered staff-level data) and results from mixed models (repeated data and clustering for pre-post changes) are reported.

resultsDespite purposeful limited promotion, uptake was good, with 182 Australian users initially registering (208 total) and 135 (from 113 organisations) then completing the sign-up process. Recruitment reached users across Australia and in 16 of 19 Australian industries. Implementation was inconsistent and limited, with signed-up users completing 0 to 14 of the program's 14 steps and only 7 (5.2%) completing all seven core steps. Many champions (n = 69, 51.1%) had low engagement (1 day toolkit usage) and few (n = 30, 22%) were highly engaged (> 1 day toolkit usage and surveyed staff). Although only 18 users (7 organisations) performed the pre- and post-program staff evaluations (337 and 167 staff, respectively), pre-post changes showed the program effectively reduced workplace sitting by - 9.0% (95% CI -12.0, - 5.9%). DISCUSSION: The program had uptake across industries and across Australia, but implementation and engagement varied widely. Few workplaces completed the evaluation components. In those that did, the program was effective for the primary outcome (workplace sitting). Conducting a planned early adopters phase and a comprehensive evaluation according to RE-AIM helped highlight necessary program improvements to make it more suitable for wide-scale implementation and evaluation.

trial registrationAustralian and New Zealand Clinic Trials Registry ACTRN12617000682347 . Date registered: 12/05/2017.

Indexed as

Sitting PositionWorkplaceAustraliaHumansProgram EvaluationSurveys and Questionnaires

Identifiers

PMID34674676
PMCPMC8532381
OpenAlexW3206217252

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.