Table 1.
Overview of the dimensions and levels of the RE-AIM SSM and corresponding outcome measures and measurement instruments.
| Dimension | Level | Outcome measure | Measurement instrument |
|---|---|---|---|
| Reach | Organization | The proportion of PETE programmes that participated in the study | — |
| Characteristics of participating vs. nonparticipating PETE programmes: # sports lecturers, # students, average # weekly sports lessons, presence of a structured injury prevention policy, presence of injury prevention in the mission of the PETE programme | Programme characteristics' questionnaire | ||
| Staff | The proportion of sports lecturers who participated in the study | — | |
| Characteristics of sports lecturers in intervention vs. control groups: age, sports teaching experience | Sports lecturer characteristics questionnaire | ||
| Student | The proportion of students who participated in the study | — | |
|
| |||
| Effectiveness | Organization | Belief in NGWP for injury prevention and study results (yes or no) | Implementation and maintenance questionnaire for programme directors |
| Staff | Belief in NGWP for injury prevention and study results (yes or no) | Implementation and maintenance questionnaire for sports lecturers | |
| Differences between intervention and control groups in pre-post changes of self-reported behaviour of prevention strategies and injury prevention-related knowledge | Behaviour and knowledge questionnaire for sports lecturers | ||
| Differences in programme adherence between intervention and control groups | Weekly online registration after invitation by e-mail | ||
| Student | Differences between intervention and control groups in pre-post changes of self-reported behaviour of prevention strategies and injury prevention-related knowledge | Behaviour and knowledge questionnaire for students | |
|
| |||
| Adoption | Organization | The proportion of PETE programs in the intervention group that adopted the intervention | — |
| Staff | The proportion of sports lecturers in the intervention group who attended the workshop | — | |
| Characteristics of sports lecturers who adopted vs. those who did not adopt the intervention: age, sports teaching experience | Sports lecturer characteristics questionnaire | ||
|
| |||
| Implementation | Organization | Delivery, adaptations and costs of the theoretical course, hand-outs, posters, and website | Implementation and maintenance questionnaire for programme directors |
| Staff | Adaptations and costs of the implementation of the prevention strategies | Implementation and maintenance questionnaire for sports lecturers | |
| Percent of lessons in which the sports lecturers implemented each prevention strategy | Weekly online registration after invitation by e-mail | ||
| Student | If students remembered the theoretical course, hand-outs and posters and if they visited the website | Implementation and maintenance questionnaire for students | |
|
| |||
| Maintenance | Organization | Maintenance of the theoretical course, hand-outs, posters, and website in the subsequent school year | Implementation and maintenance questionnaire for programme directors |
| Intention to include injury prevention in the mission of the PETE programme in the subsequent school year | |||
| Staff | Maintenance of the prevention strategies in the subsequent school year | Implementation and maintenance questionnaire for sports lecturers | |
| Student | Maintenance of the prevention strategies in the subsequent school year | Implementation and maintenance questionnaire for students | |
PETE = physical education teacher education; NGWP = no gain with pain.