From: Exploring influences on evaluation practice: a case study of a national physical activity programme
Project | Lead Organisation | Evaluation Partner | Location and Setting | Target Population | Aims and Objectives |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
GHGA | Sport England | In-house and independent consultants | NA | Inactive people aged 14 years and over | To encourage inactive adults to increase their physical activity by participating in sport, and build the evidence base |
1–01 | County Sports Partnership | University Partner | County-wide community settings | Inactive adults aged 16 years and over | How inactive adults can be recruited into sport and PA; How sport can be used to engage inactive adults in PA; Assess the impact and cost-effectiveness |
1–02 | University | University Led | CCG area, sport and leisure settings | Inactive people with hypertension, suspected or pre-hypertension or high-normal blood pressure | Whether sports-based referral for exercise would be effective compared to traditional gym-based projects; Whether a self-help web-based tool would add any additional benefit |
1–03 | University | University Led | Metropolitan borough, community settings | Inactive people | To design and deliver innovative community sports for health projects in different local contexts; Evaluate the design, outcomes, processes and costs of the project. |
1–04 | County Sports Partnership | University Partner | County-wide | Sedentary people at excess risk of cardiovascular disease and Type 2 diabetes | To describe the demographic details and impact of the project on self-reported and objectively measured physical activity; To gain insights into the experiences of participants and deliverers |
1–05 | County Sports Partnership Network | University Partner | National workplaces | Inactive employees | To develop a package of interventions to engage people in PA in workplaces; Assess the effectiveness of the project on increasing sport & PA and on business outcomes; Understand factors associated with using the workplace to engage the inactive in sport and PA |
1–06 | County Sports Partnership | University Partner | City and County districts, community settings | Inactive people living in target areas | To develop and test a community model for engaging inactive individuals in sport and PA; Assess whether one-to-one mentoring influences experiences and adherence to participation in sport and physical activity; Explore influences of engagement of family and friends; Explore wider benefits; Explore impact of engaging volunteers |
1–07 | Charity | Evaluation Consultant | Geographical Health regions across UK | People Living with Cancer | Understand how the pathway has been implemented; Assess the extent to which delivery is in line with the ideal model; Explore efficacy of the interventions, scalability of the pathway, processes for best practice delivery, and impact of the pathway on service users and their families |
1–08 | County Sports Partnership | University Partner | County-wide, leisure settings | Referrers of inactive people (various health services) | To help individuals meet recommended levels of physical activity, based on the Lets Get Moving pathway |
1–09 | County Council | University Partner | County-wide, community settings | Inactive adults with long-term health conditions: cancer, cardiovascular disease, type II diabetes, mental health and from deprived communities | To establish the effectiveness of the project at increasing and sustaining PA of inactive individuals; Establish the effectiveness of tailoring interventions to specific population groups; Understand the mechanisms by which outcomes were reached and identify good practice and difficulties |
1–10 | Not-for-profit association | Not Stated | City and County-wide, GP surgeries | Individuals 18–75 years with a BMI between 28 and 35 resident in the catchment of participating surgeries | To provide an overarching assessment of the project and its impact upon participation in sporting sessions and physical activity levels |
1–11 | Borough Council group | University Partner | Metropolitan borough | Inactive people aged 14 and over, with a BMI of 28 or more | To help people get fit and lose weight by taking up sport; Evaluate effects of a community sports referral project compared with standard community exercise referral |
2–01 | County Sports Partnership | University Partner | County-wide, sheltered housing and care homes | Residents aged 65 years and over in sheltered housing and care home sites | To promote physical activity among residents in group homes with the aim of normalising physical activity |
2–02 | Not-for-profit association | University Partner | County districts | Inactive people over 16 years, living in target areas, one or more risk factors for cardiovascular disease &/or mild to moderate mental health problems | To support inactive adults to become more active and to work with Primary Health Care as a primary route of referral; Assess the measurable change on PA, general health and wellbeing; Understand how the project worked |
2–03 | City Council | Evaluation Consultant | City areas, community settings | Pregnant and post-pregnant women | To increase the activity levels of pregnant and post-pregnant women |
2–04 | County Sports Partnership | University Partner | County-wide, leisure and community settings | People with drug and alcohol related problems | To encourage active and healthier lifestyles for adults recovering from drug and alcohol misuse |
2–05 | Borough Council | University Partner | Metropolitan borough, community settings | Inactive people with a high risk of developing type 2 diabetes, aged 47–74 years | To show the impact of a targeted sport & PA project on helping prevent or reduce the onset of type 2 diabetes and risk factors, for high risk adults; Assess differences across demographic categories; Assess if peer support can impact on someone increasing (and maintaining) PA; Assess differences in GP- and self-referred |
2–06 | Borough Council | University Partner | County-wide | Inactive people with a long-term condition: Cardiac Phase IV, Chronic Heart Failure, Stroke, Cancer, Lower Back Pain, Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease & Falls Prevention | To support individuals with long term conditions to become and stay more physically active; To understand how effective the project was in providing condition specific support via PA pathways for seven long-term conditions, cost effectiveness, and the process of delivering the programme |
2–07 | Borough Council | University Partner | Metropolitan borough | Older adults | To engage inactive older adults in PA at least once a week for 30 min; Evaluate project effectiveness on older adults’ physical activity, sedentary behaviour and self-reported health indicators |
2–08 | District Council | University Partner | District, leisure & community settings | Inactive, hypertensive, pre-diabetic, diabetic or overweight/obese people | To engage individuals in sport and PA through collaborative working between general practice and community leisure services; Understand the population impact; Understand Reach, Effectiveness, Adoption, Implementation and Maintenance |
2–09 | Not-for-profit association | University Partner | Metropolitan borough, community settings | Residents | To support and empower residents to lead healthier lives, to be more active and lose/maintain a healthy weight |
2–10 | University | University Led | City-wide | Young people (14-25 yrs), working adults and older adults (65+), and those with an identified health risk through smoking or obesity | To put in place a city-wide (whole systems) approach to tackling physical inactivity; Investigate changes in PA awareness and behaviour in response to the implementation of a consortium-led, multi-agency, person-centred behaviour change project |
2–11 | County Council Public Health | Evaluation Consultant | County-wide, leisure and community settings | Inactive people in the County | To enable inactive people to engage with sporting activities to lower rates of physical and mental ill-health and to reduce public expenditure related to preventable illness; Evaluate how implementation has improved outcomes and experiences for participants, including improvements in quality of life, health and well-being |
2–12 | Not-for-profit association | University Partner | City-wide | Inactive men & women (aged 26–75) who already had type 2 diabetes or were pre-diabetic or were at high risk of type 2 diabetes | To engage target population in a community-based sport and PA intervention to increase PA, enhance health and wellbeing and facilitate the management of disease symptoms |