Skip to main content
. 2018 Dec 27;18:1407. doi: 10.1186/s12889-018-6289-5

Table 1.

Key features in the process evaluation of ‘We Act – together for health’

Evaluation feature Evaluation question Indicator of fidelity Data source
Reach Were the target groups of pupils, teachers, principals and parents reached as proposed? - Proposed pupils and grades were involved in We Act Field visits (=43)
Questionnaires to parents (n = 52)
- Teachers assigned and delivered as proposed
- Parents informed; used app, Facebook, and webpage; received IEAT handout; participated in pupils’ presentation of visions
- Principals participated in introduction meetings, competence workshop and pupils’ presentation of visions
- Health committee formed and supported the action phase.
Dose and delivery Was the dose of lessons and activities delivered as proposed, and with the intended pupil participation according to the IVAC methodology? Investigation with IMOVE: 6 lessons over 2 weeks Field visits (=43)
Questionnaires to parents (n = 52)
Interviews with teachers (n = 9) and principals (n = 4 principals in 7 interviews)
Focus group interviews (=12) with pupils (n = 52)
Investigation with IEAT: 9 lessons over 2 weeks (same 2 weeks as IMOVE)
Vision Workshop: 12 lessons over 2 weeks (immediately after IMOVE/IEAT)
Action & Change: 12 lessons over 1–3 months
- It worked well in practice that pupils collected their own data on steps and food intake
- All assignments were used for IMOVE and IEAT
- Pupils elected IMOVE managers (indicator of participation)
- Pupils worked with the IEAT handout (indicator of parent involvement)
- Steps for the Vision Workshop were followed and pupils participated actively
- Pupils presented their visions to an audience outside the class
- Pupils participated in actions
Context What context factors interacted and influenced the implementation fidelity? All above
How consistent were the adaptions with the intervention theory?