ASSIGNMENT 2: HEALTHCARE PROGRAM

EVALUATION
“What happened in the ‘Move for Wellbeing in School’: a
process evaluation of a cluster randomized physical activity
intervention using the RE-AIM framework”
Design the method more for the evaluation

Lam Vu Truong - 6337063

SEAP Program
Faculty of Pharmacy
Mahidol University
 OUTLINE

• INTRODUCTION

• NEW METHOD FOR

EVALUATION
 INTRODUCTION

 In this project, “Well-being” is understood based on the self-determination

theory, which emphasizes self-realization and vitality as key components
 Well-being improves when the three basic psychological goals of autonomy,
competence, and social relatedness are met
 Physical exercise might be more or less helpful to meeting the three
psychological demands, depending on the situation and social context
 INTRODUCTION

 The main objective of MWS is to design, implement, and evaluate a multi-

component, school-based physical activity intervention to increase
psychological well-being in school-aged children and youths in grades 4–6.
 The development, implementation and evaluation of the intervention are
guided by The Medical Research Council framework for the development of
complex interventions
INTRODUCTION
 EVALUATION METHOD

 The conceptual framework of this evaluation research will be applied from

Donabedian model including 3 elements:
 Structure examines how the program was set up
 Process focus on the monitoring activities undertaken by the educators or
the teacher by data recording
 Outcomes incorporate on both the implementation and effectiveness of
school-based, physical activity intervention.
 EVALUATION METHOD

STRUCTURE PROCESS
• Context of physical activity • Time of program
intervention • Frequency of training and education
• The number of schools included or • Implementation process
excluded • Activities performed
• How the program were set up

OUTCOME
• Implementation
• Effectiveness
 EVALUATION METHOD

Qualitative approach Quantitative approach

Objective To examine why a minor of school To evaluate the Implementation,

invited decided to join the program refers to the number elements, and
(24/126) the frequency of each intervention.
To evaluate the effectiveness, the
impact of the intervention on
educator’s perceptions
 EVALUATION METHOD

QUALITATIVE APPROACH
1. Population
School included and excluded from the program
There are 126 possible school but only 24 school recruited
 EVALUATION METHOD

QUALITATIVE APPROACH (cont.)

2. Instrument
For the schools excluded from the program: A copy of program report would be
sent accompanied by a qualitative questionnaire to examine:
• The reason why they decide not to join the program
• How they consider about the results of the program
• Their interesting if there is a similar program in the future
 EVALUATION METHOD

QUALITATIVE APPROACH (cont.)

2. Instrument (cont.)
For the schools including in the program, qualitative questionnaire for
educators/teachers:
• What degree they believe in an effect of the intervention of the
intervention components on students’ well-being
• Whether they noticed an improvement in students’ well-being
 EVALUATION METHOD

QUALITATIVE APPROACH (cont.)

2. Instrument (cont.)
• The rate of adapbility of the program to their work every day
• Whether the approach of the project was consistent with their self-image
as educators
• Overall effect of the project
• Whether they would recommend MWS to other schools
 EVALUATION METHOD

QUALITATIVE APPROACH (cont.)

3. Data collection
Educators would be asked to complete an online questionnaire three times
during the intervention: 2 months, 5 months and 9 month
 EVALUATION METHOD

QUALITATIVE APPROACH (cont.)

3. Data collection
Educators would be asked to complete an online questionnaire three times
during the intervention: 2 months, 5 months and 9 month
 EVALUATION METHOD

QUALITATIVE APPROACH (cont.)

4. Data analysis
• Forming meaningful sentences
• Marking the important experience words
• Finding mingningful units and repeated units
• Rephrasing
• Checking if the rephrased units is consistent with the original
• Analyzing
 EVALUATION METHOD

QUANTITATIVE APPROACH (cont.)

1. Population
The educators who participated in the project
2. Instrument
Self-reporting form of educators involving: Student background, the number
and the frequency of PA intervention applied.
 EVALUATION METHOD

QUANTITATIVE APPROACH
3. Data collection
Educators would be asked to complete an online reporting form three times
during the intervention: 2 months, 5 months and 9 month
4. Data analysis
Data would be analysed by descriptive statistic through mean, standard
deviation, median. The results would be used to evaluate the implementation of
the program.
THANK YOU
Please fill free to ask me or share you

opinion