Table 1 |
||
| Process evaluation plan formulated according to Saunders et al[30] | ||
| Process evaluation question | Complete and acceptable delivery | Process measure |
| How many people of the target population took part in the project? How representative is the intervention group for the study population? (Reach) | The intervention group is comparable to the study population. | Self-report, StOEH client database |
| To how many participants was a PRO-FIT*advice account provided? (Dose delivered) | A log on account was provided to all (100%) participants. | Coach logs/project database |
| To what extent did participants actively engage in using PRO-FIT*advice as intended, with regard to logging on, the number of modules finished and action planning? (Dose received) | All participants (100%) logged on and completed at least one of the modules of PRO-FIT*advice. Action planning was optional. | Website use data |
| How many participants received a visit from a personal lifestyle coach? (Dose delivered) | All (100%) participants received a visit from the lifestyle coach. | Coach logs/project database |
| To what extent was face-to-face counselling delivered as planned by MI guidelines? (Fidelity) | All (100%) face-to-face counselling sessions were delivered according to MI guidelines. | The Motivational Interviewing Treatment Integrity (MITI 3.1.1.) code |
| How many telephone booster sessions were provided? (Dose delivered) | 1-5 telephone booster sessions were delivered. | Coach logs |
Broekhuizen et al. BMC Public Health 2012 12:348 doi:10.1186/1471-2458-12-348
