Assessing implementation fidelity and adaptation in a community-based childhood obesity prevention intervention
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Little research has assessed the fidelity, adaptation or integrity of activities implemented within community-based obesity prevention initiatives. To address this gap, a mixed-method process evaluation was undertaken in the context of the South Australian Obesity Prevention and Lifestyle (OPAL) initiative. An ecological coding procedure assessed fidelity and adaptation of activity settings, targets and strategies implemented in the second year of four communities. Implementation integrity reflected fidelity and adaptation to local context, whereas efforts resulting in significant deviations from the original plan were deemed to lack fidelity and integrity. Staff implemented 284 strategies in 205 projects. Results show that 68.3 and 2.1% of strategies were implemented with fidelity or adapted, respectively. Overall, 70.4% of all strategies were implemented with integrity. Staff experienced barriers with 29.6% of strategies. Chi-square analyses show statistically significant associations between implementation integrity and strategy type, intervention and behavioural targets. These relationships are weak to modest. The strongest relationship was found between implementation integrity and proximal target. Staff experienced implementation barriers at the coalition, policy, organization, interpersonal and community levels. The greatest range of barriers was encountered working with organizations. To overcome these barriers, staff took greater ownership, invested more time, persisted and allocated more financial resources.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.139 | 0.283 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".