ArticleBMC public health2025
Feasibility of scaling-up an evidence-based physical activity behaviour change intervention into routine ambulatory hospital care: a retrospective implementation evaluation using the RE-AIM framework.
Article in BMC public health, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundScaling up evidence-based interventions to improve physical activity (PA) is important for enhancing health outcomes. The Healthy4U (H4U) program, initially successful in improving PA and health outcomes among ambulatory hospital patients, was expanded from one regional hospital to five rural hospitals. This study retrospectively examines the feasibility of implementing H4U at Scale (H4U-AS) over 12 months.
methodsA feasibility implementation evaluation was conducted retrospectively using the RE-AIM (Reach, Effectiveness, Adoption, Implementation, Maintenance) framework. The following variables were assessed within each RE-AIM domain: Reach: Number of program participants. EFFECTIVENESS: Measured changes in PA (Metabolic Equivalent of Task minutes (MET-mins/week)), sedentary behaviour (hours/day spent seated), fruit and vegetable intake (serves/day), and nicotine dependence score (Fagerström Test for Nicotine Dependence (FTND)) using paired t-tests or Wilcoxon signed-rank tests. Adoption: Type of setting, program integration, and behaviour change training uptake. IMPLEMENTATION: Participant and hospital recruitment adherence. Maintenance: Continuation of the program.
resultsReach: In total, 37 participants were recruited during the 6-month recruitment period; pre- and post-data were available for 33. EFFECTIVENESS: PA increased from a median of 460 MET-mins/week to 840 (p < 0.001). Sedentary behaviour decreased from 8.0 h/day to 7.0 (p < 0.001). Vegetable intake increased from 3.0 serves/day to 3.5 (p = 0.001). Fruit intake did not change significantly (p = 0.228). Nicotine dependence decreased non-significantly from 5.0 to 4.5 (p = 0.08). Adoption: The program was successfully implemented in five rural hospitals; feedback from hospital representatives indicated that recruitment procedures were integrated into existing hospital workflows. To support recruitment, processes were adapted to include mailing out invites to people on elective surgery wait lists. IMPLEMENTATION: 86% of participants completed the minimum 4 of 6 available sessions, and all hospitals recruited during the program period. Maintenance: Funding for the project was not available beyond the 12-month period. As a result, recruitment into the program was ceased.
conclusionH4U-AS suggests that implementing an evidence-based PA intervention from one regional hospital to five rural hospitals may be feasible. Participants improved PA and dietary behaviours. However, limited participant recruitment during the short recruitment period, and funding cessation, impacted the extent to which the program could be offered and evaluated at scale.
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.