Table 1.

Feasibility and acceptability measures and results for the Guelph Family Health Study pilot RCT study design and intervention

Purpose	Variable	Assessment method	Results
Feasibility of study design	Recruitment	Recruitment activity log*	Promotion on the University website recruited the highest percentage of the participants (27%), followed by social media posts by our study partners (22%) and word of mouth (14%).
	Outcome assessment	Study records*	All but two families (96% of the families) completed post-intervention health assessment visits and questionnaires. One family was lost to follow-up, and the other family opted out of the assessment due to family stressors.
Acceptability of study design	Randomization	Comparison of follow-up rates in intervention and control*	The retention rate for families randomized to the 4HV intervention was 94% (16/17 families) and to the 2HV intervention was 100% (14/14 families). Retention in the control was 92% (12/13 families).
Feasibility of GFHS intervention	Implementation of health educator training	Attendance log for trainings* MI evaluation of health educators†	All health educators (n = 4) completed the 2-day motivational interviewing (MI) training provided by the Monarch System™. All health educators were evaluated on their motivational interviewing at the end of the 2-day training. All health educators were found to be competent in using motivational interviewing at the end of the training.
	Fidelity of intervention	Home visit log‡ Fidelity to motivational interviewing at home visits† Report of delivery of weekly emails from email software* Delivery of monthly mailouts*	Health educators administered all home visits per study protocol within the 6-month intervention. MI experts, who were not involved in the intervention, reviewed audio recordings of 10% (n = 15) of the home visits and used the Motivational Interviewing Treatment Integrity (MITI) version 4.2.1 to assess MI fidelity (Hamilton et al. 2013). MI adherence was found to be 85.2%. All emails were delivered as per study protocol. All mailouts were delivered as per study protocol.
	Implementation of intervention	Completion of home visits log‡ Receipt of weekly emails from email software* Receipt of mailed incentives*	All but one family (96%) received their home visits with a health educator as per the study protocol; the family was randomized to the 4HV group and declined all home visits. Sixty percent of the weekly emails were opened by intervention families. One hundred percent of the weekly mailings were received by intervention families.
Acceptability of GFHS intervention	Parent satisfaction	Post-intervention survey completed by families randomized to interventions (4HV and 2HV)§	One hundred percent of the families were satisfied with the study. One hundred percent of the families would recommend the GFHS to a friend or relative. Families reported that the health educator visits were the most helpful component of the GFHS in helping them create healthier routines (88% found the home visits useful or very useful). Incentives (mailed the children’s activities) were the second most helpful (66%), followed by the weekly emails (63%). Eleven families responded to the open-ended question about ways to improve the Guelph Family Health Study intervention. Four families suggested improving the emails by providing additional research and information in the emails. Sample quote: “Better emails. Maybe add a section at bottom ‘to take it further’ or something. Some link to study or scholarly research.” Three families requested more feedback on their families’ health behaviours. Sample quote: “I would be interested in feedback about monitoring/testing results.” Two families suggested improving the quality and seasonal appropriateness of the mailed incentives. Sample quote: “Fewer, higher quality ‘incentives’ mailed out.” One family identified that 2HV was too few to make an impact. Quote: “It would have been nice to have more than 2 home visits to discuss what was/wasn’t working.” One family suggested that the intervention should include ways to engage reluctant family members into the intervention.

Completed by ^*study staff, ^†Monarch System™ staff, ^‡GFHS health educator, and ^§parent participant