American Journal of Preventive Medicine
Active living research: A six-year reportEvaluation of Active Living Research: Progress and Lessons in Building a New Field
Introduction
In 2000, the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation (RWJF) expanded its efforts to improve healthy lifestyles by targeting increased physical activity in daily life. RWJF staff selected environmental and policy change as the primary approach to this health behavior issue, building on their decade-long work on tobacco control. RWJF staff posited that progress on policy and practice in this nascent field would require both the development of an evidence base and capacity among researchers to produce needed knowledge and the development and testing of policies and interventions, with support for successful policies and interventions coming from professionals and policymakers. Consequently, the RWJF took a multi-pronged grantmaking approach, developing a suite of programs to address the various necessary pieces of the paradigm: research (Active Living Research [ALR]); community demonstrations (Active Living by Design); support from elected officials (Active Living Leadership); and support and coordination from the media and other “influentials” (Active Living Network). This suite of programs was designed to increase physical activity across the entire population; see Orleans et al.1 in this supplement to the American Journal of Preventive Medicine.
Authorized in 2001 for $12.5 million, ALR was designed “to stimulate and support research that will identify environmental factors and public and private policies that influence physical activity among Americans” (www.activelivingresearch.org). Program activities were designed to achieve three goals: (1) establishing a strong research base regarding the environment as well as the policy correlates and determinants of physical activity, (2) helping to build a transdisciplinary field of physical activity policy and environmental researchers, and (3) facilitating the use of research to support policy change (www.activelivingresearch.org). During the subsequent 6 years, the program, led by a national program office (NPO) and a national advisory committee, issued seven calls for proposals (CFPs) starting in 2002 and awarded 121 grants. Sallis et al.2 in this supplement provides more specifics about the program.
In June 2006, the RWJF supported evaluation both to assess the initial 6-year stage of ALR's efforts to stimulate and develop research on physical activity in daily life and to inform consideration of the program's re-authorization, including potential ways to enhance the program's function and its contribution to the more recently adopted goal of preventing childhood obesity. Two complementary assessments were instituted: (1) the Gutman Research Associates' (GRA) study to examine mainly the program's productivity and its progress in achieving its original goals and objectives during the past 6 years; and (2) the Group Health Community Foundation's study to focus more on the future of ALR within the context of childhood obesity prevention. Orleans et al.1 in this supplement provides more information on the decision to support two complementary evaluations. Although 6 years have passed since the program was authorized and 5 years since its first CFP, it is important to note that only 16% of the competitively awarded grants had been completed prior to 2006.
To achieve these purposes, the GRA study addressed four research questions that derived from the initiative's goals and the RWJF's information needs:
- 1
To what extent is ALR working to build the knowledge base on policy and environmental factors conducive to physical activity?
- 2
To what extent is ALR working to build human resources—in this case, a dynamic, transdisciplinary research community?
- 3
To what extent is ALR working to build additional financial resources for active living research?
- 4
To what extent are the research findings from ALR studies contributing to policy discussions on how to promote physical activity through policy and environmental change?
This paper presents the findings from the GRA study that address the four evaluation questions above, describing the evaluation's focus and methods and presenting the results generated as well as conclusions and recommendations.
Section snippets
Logic Model
The conceptual, or logic, model for the ALR program, developed by the NPO, was used to guide the evaluation as it addressed the four research questions (see Figure 1 in Sallis et al.4 in this supplement). While the model was generally useful for this purpose, three aspects of it needed refinement to provide optimal guidance for the evaluation. First, the model did not give explicit recognition to the program's context, notably the RWJF organization and the set of related Active Living programs
Methods
The evaluation was a retrospective, in-depth, descriptive study utilizing multiple methods and both qualitative and quantitative data. Most of the data collection took place from July 2006 through December 2006, with a few interviews and some of the quantitative analyses implemented thereafter, ending in February 2007; a final report was submitted in June 2007.
Building the Knowledge Base
An important goal of ALR was to build a knowledge base regarding environmental and policy correlates of physical activity that could inform policy change. The program implemented several major activities to build the knowledge base, notably developing a research agenda; developing and issuing a series of CFPs; peer review and the awarding of grants on a competitive basis; and the awarding of grants on a noncompetitive basis for commissioned studies (e.g., systematic literature reviews, White
Summary and Conclusion
Gutman Research Associates conducted a retrospective, in-depth, descriptive evaluation of ALR 6 years after the program's authorization and 5 years after the program issued its first of seven CFPs. The evaluation was intended to assess progress on program goals in order to inform re-authorization discussions at the RWJF and to guide future grantmaking efforts within the program itself. At the time of the evaluation, only 16% of 83 ALR studies awarded on a competitive basis had been completed,
References (22)
- et al.
History of the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation's Active Living Research program: origins and strategy
Am J Prev Med
(2009) - et al.
The Active Living Research program: six years of grantmaking
Am J Prev Med
(2009) - et al.
Study designs and analytic strategies for environmental and policy research on obesity, physical activity, and diet: recommendations from a meeting of experts
Am J Prev Med
(2009) - et al.
Environmental and policy interventions to promote physical activity
Am J Prev Med
(1998) - et al.
The effectiveness of interventions to increase physical activity: a systematic review
Am J Prev Med
(2002) - et al.
Translating evidenced-based physical activity interventions into practice: the 2010 challenge
Am J Prev Med
(2002) Have we learned anything new about the use of evaluation?
Am J Evaluation
(1998)- et al.
Active Living Research
Am J Prev Med
(2005)
Cited by (20)
Public health sector influence in transportation decision-making: The case of health impact assessment
2020, Case Studies on Transport PolicyThe characteristics and reporting quality of research impact case studies: A systematic review
2019, Evaluation and Program PlanningCitation Excerpt :Milat et al. (2013) reported their research to have made contributions to organisational development and informed program planning (n = 1, 4%). More than half of the studies (n = 14, 56%) reported small to medium-sized contributions to, and/or changes to either local, national, or international policy (Ottoson et al., 2009, Bunn & Kendall, 2011; Caddell et al., 2010; Donovan et al., 2014; Greenhalgh & Fahy, 2015; Gutman et al., 2009; Harris, 2010; Jarman & Bryan, 2015; Kingwell et al., 2006; Klautzer et al., 2011; Milat et al., 2013; Raftery et al., 2009; Tulloch et al., 2011; Walker et al., 2010). However, some of the contributions to policy did not have any consequential effects or practical application (n = 3, 12%) (Bunn & Kendall, 2011; Ottoson et al., 2009; Tulloch et al., 2011).
Building the field of population health intervention research: The development and use of an initial set of competencies
2015, Preventive Medicine ReportsCitation Excerpt :This orientation for the competencies is consistent with field building for applied research. For example, the competencies are intended to strengthen both academic and professional disciplines (Isaacs and Knickman, 2005), and they aim to link research and action, which is essential in applied fields with a focus on policy and practice interventions (Gutman et al., 2009). Timely use of the PHIR competencies will help to capitalize on early successes in defining and building PHIR as a field.
Evaluation of active living research: Ten years of progress in building a new field
2014, American Journal of Preventive MedicineCitation Excerpt :Considerable progress also was noted in its contribution to policy and practice, its third goal. As recommended by the ALR-1 evaluation,3 ALR-2 improved its outreach to the policy and practitioner community, and in doing so, helped to accelerate ALR research’s contribution to policy and practice. Of the 62 examples of policy contribution and/or impact from 2001 to 2011, slighty more than one half of these examples changed policy or practice, mainly at the local level.
Active living research: Creating and using evidence to support childhood obesity prevention
2014, American Journal of Preventive Medicine