1. Evaluation — RWJF grant
      
2. Protocol website
1. Firm up how researchers approach REAIM issues. 
2. The website will target researchers to communicate REAIM topics. 
3. Proposal to use existing infrastructure at Kansas State University to set up the REAIM site. 
4. The website will initially be comprised of 5 or so pages that document the REAIM framework, definitions, etc. It will also include a message board to facilitate online discussions.
5. Access will be available to anyone.  The site will not be exclusionary.  It will allow people to log onto site using a personal username and password.
6. Other resources that will be available on the site include review papers, power point talks, and links to other related websites.
7. There was some discussion in the meeting relative to using web-trend software to determine how the site gets used.
8. The possibility of working with other BCC groups such as treatment fidelity for developing the website.
9. There was discussion of other groups that have developed websites around translation of research to practice.  These may provide some information on how best to develop the site.

                                                               i.      NCI and 6 other regional groups New England Regional pages on translation. NCI has a health promotion site with measures and maybe practical issues.

                                                             ii.      Youth development groups are using interactive websites that link researchers and practitioners for evaluation and have much of the data that would allow for examination of many REAIM components.

10. Due to the limited funds for development consensus was that the website would target communicating the REAIM dimensions and providing potential evaluations. The idea from the website is to give us some pilot experience.  If things work out then move towards something that is more interactive.
11. Include in the monthly update when it is up and running… after some testing.
12. It should be up and running in February.

3. Tools and measures for REAIM
1. Main tool currently is the template for evaluation.  An elaborated and detailed version of the JAMA flow chart. Takes into account both individual and organizational level.  That is shared in a draft of our minutes on the BCC site.
2. Template and framework can be helpful in upfront planning for researchers.
       
4. Report on REACH and PARTICIPATION cross-site paper
1. Overview from Russ

                                                               i.      Survey of all BCC sites about what their recruitment activities were, what target population, numbers recruited.  We reported it back to the group.  Before too long everyone would have finished enrollment and recruitment.  A paper on the results and look at the rate and representativeness.   Will look at it as a prospective design, use initial assessment compared to what was recruited at the participant level.

2. Not an examination of strategies… the focus of this would be how representative was the sample.  May need access to some other information about the broader population. 
3. The general purpose of the paper is to describe it is important to monitor this issue rather than to compare the sites to other research.  BCC studies are examples of how this might be done.
4. Will be a data driven paper.
5. Site based projects are easier for the denominator.
6. There was discussion about potential classification of study types:

                                                               i.      Studies that use settings with a very defined population: Schools and worksites.

                                                             ii.      Community or clinic-based studies that use proactive recruitment strategies.  Can use who was reached on the phone or what ever.

                                                            iii.      Community or clinic-based studies that use reactive recruitment strategies.  For example recruit through mass marketing, difficult to give the denominator for reach.

1.      Big question is “Can you define a contact population?”

2.      Specific desire of how to do it at the community level.

                                                           iv.      Question, do we have interest in including all study types?  Should it be up to the sites?

7. What is the action item?  Are we going to ask these people for information on REACH?
8. We could get it done in the reasonably near future if we use the subset of studies.  Maybe use the sites that we are associated with.
9. After our discussion the following purpose was fleshed out:  The purpose of the paper will be 1) discuss some issues of represenativeness and external validity and their importance to health promotion research 2) examine means of reporting by using different types of studies reflected by a sub sample of BCC sites.
10. Lisa Klesges will take the lead.

5. Review articles
1. 4 review articles using REAIM criteria.
2. Have submitted Health Care Settings and Worksite Settings.
3. Still to be submitted School and Community Settings.

6. Organization survey was also done with BCC sites and we have submitted it to present at SBM
1. Maybe this could be shared with some type of practice journal where people may use that.  Practice journal with health promotion, health educator types.  Maybe American Journal of Health Promotion. Center for the advancement of health—Habit Newsletter. Health Promotion Practice.

7. Evaluation of the practice based research networks (PBRN)
1. Practice based settings that are interested in research
2. RWJF funding to pursue and initiative to get evidence based practices with AHRQ.  There was a planning and feedback meeting a month ago.
3. May be opportunity to help foundation and to learn and test run some of our evaluation ideas. Possible ways to select sites and evaluate outcomes and impact of the project.
4. Robin’s idea on where the initiative might go and at what stage should we start working.  There is a meeting scheduled for mid December with AHRQ and come up with a preliminary design for the project.  There was a lot of rich feedback and let the research networks give a lot of there interest and concerns so that the program would truly meet their needs.  A little different from the usual way—we give project without input.  Give them a way to look at how to integrate health behavior change into their network.  It will be co-funded by RWJ & AHRQ.  This initiative will provide some resources for them to focus on HBC in a clinical settings.  Will give out a number of grants, PBRNs would compete.  Then provide T&T arms that would focus around 1) science base for HBC—use existing models, translate already used models into their work, 2) how to link with community organizations that may have resources and interventions that they may share or tap into, 3) to help them do thinking around office and practice redesign to build the work into what they do in a realistic setting.   They are very enthusiastic to implement HBC stuff into their settings.  No real resistance.  Centers of technical assistance that would help PBRNs.
5. Commonalities that we may want to think about?  There is some experience in the collaborative so it may be an option.  Don Irwin is doing some work on pursuing perfection—quality of care, building an active learning strategies.
6. In terms of the science base the grantees will be targeting different behaviors.  The similarity is that the grantees would be asked to focus on multiple behaviors (at least 2).
7. Russ’ question—is it premature for us to be working on something for this?  It might be helpful to get in touch after the January meeting to lay out where we are heading and what the timeline is and discuss where our group might fit in.  Board meeting around July. 

 

8. Cross-site proposals
1. Feasibility of the proposal to institutionalization of intervention strategies.

                                                               i.      Who are the decision makers?

                                                             ii.      How many studies use sites to facilitate the intervention? (Distinguish between studies that use sites to do the intervention and those that use the sites to recruit for the intervention)

                                                            iii.      Kansas, HOPE, PHLAME, Emery, Harvard?, Belinda’s project, Minnesota, Michigan

                                                           iv.      Potential funding agencies for this type of work: NCI, NHLBI, RWJF, & CDC

                                                             v.      Action Steps: send out minutes (Paul), determine number of sites (Lisa), if there are enough sites make initial calls to determine if people want to collaborate. 

2. How can the information be centralized so that there is some sort of longitudinality to accessing the information?  The idea extends beyond just simply having a central web based mechanism.  There is necessity to include technical training and assistance.  The way we set up the Kansas web site so that we can have a resource that can include the larger level and flow down to more local or regional levels.  Potential proposal for a mini center of excellence that you would hold 1-2 meetings/year clearing house, website.  Build in support for sustainability over time from different sources.

                                                               i.      There is a need for a catalyst to facilitate this type of evaluation and these issues in research. Go to major meetings with a Road Show—Symposium at major conferences.

                                                             ii.      Potentially propose it as a mechanism to evaluate the progress of translation.

                                                            iii.      Provide a rationale for the benefits of using the framework: the tools—the philosophy and the concrete information behind the framework.  Mandates to agencies for evaluation, think about CDC—prevention research centers.  It is a model where they provide technical assistance.  What is the benefit for the individual as well as for the field?

                                                           iv.      In regards to this proposal the REAIM group made the decision to target researchers. What can be done now? The website.  Think in terms of short, medium, and long term.  Center is a longer-term commitment.  Have a conversation with Robin re: center. 
 

This evaluation draft may be used as a guide for both the quantitative and qualitative components of the proposal. 

Environmental Factors

            Intervention

a)      Frequency—Number of administrations of intervention components/strategies (single versus multiple). 

b)      Intensity—Expertise required, cost of intervention maintenance, sustainability as an outcome.

c)      Type—Modality, policy, program, activity, explicitness of protocol

d)      Effectiveness—Was the intervention successful and at what level?  Was it clearly communicated to the site?

            Organizational Structure

a)      Number of sites

b)      Formal versus Informal

c)      Staff type: Single versus multiple decision makers, infrastructure to promote targeted health behavior, leadership commitment, trained and exist.

d)      Competing issues 

Personal Factors

            Outcome Expectancies related to continuance

a)      Level of Effectiveness

b)      Cost

            Self-efficacy for program continuation

a)      To continue the same protocol

b)      To cover intervention costs

Behavior

           Continuance

            Adaptation

            Discontinuance