Abstract
BackgroundThe US National Physical Activity Plan (NPAP) was released in 2009 as a national strategic plan to increase physical activity (PA). The NPAP emphasized implementing state and local PA programs. Dissemination of information about NPAP has been limited, however.Community ContextWest Virginia is a predominantly rural state with high rates of chronic diseases associated with physical inactivity. In 2015 an evaluability assessment (EA) of the West Virginia Physical Activity Plan (WVPAP) was conducted, and community stakeholders were invited to participate in updating the plan.MethodsA good EA seeks stakeholder input, assists in identifying program areas that need improvement, and ensures that a full evaluation will produce useful information. Data for this EA were collected via national stakeholder interviews, document reviews, discussions among workgroups consisting of state and local stakeholders, and surveys to determine how well the WVPAP had been implemented.OutcomeThe EA highlighted the need for WVPAP leaders to 1) establish a specific entity to implement local PA plans, 2) create sector-specific logic models to simplify the WVPAP for local stakeholders, 3) evaluate the PA plan’s implementation frequently from the outset, 4) use quick and efficient engagement techniques with stakeholders when working with them to select strategies, tactics, and measurable outcomes, and 5) understand the elements necessary to implement, manage, and evaluate a good PA plan.InterpretationAn EA process is recommended for other leaders of PA plans. Our project highlights the stakeholders’ desire to simplify the WVPAP so that it can be set up as a locally driven process that engages communities in implementation.
Highlights
Background The US National Physical ActivityPlan (NPAP) was released in 2009 as a national strategic plan to increase physical activity (PA)
Outcome The evaluability assessment (EA) highlighted the need for West Virginia Physical Activity Plan (WVPAP) leaders to 1) establish a specific entity to implement local PA plans, 2) create sector-specific logic models to simplify the WVPAP for local stakeholders, 3) evaluate the PA plan’s implementation frequently from the outset, 4) use quick and efficient engagement techniques with stakeholders when working with them to select strategies, tactics, and measurable outcomes, and 5) understand the elements necessary to implement, manage, and evaluate a good PA plan
Interpretation An EA process is recommended for other leaders of PA plans
Summary
The challenges in evaluating the NPAP described by Kohl et al [6] suggest that a “rush to evaluate” is common in large, multicomponent, multidisciplinary public health programs. Using the results of stakeholder engagement activities as a basis, the EA team recommended 5 action steps for the WVPAP CC to take when implementing, revising, or evaluating future plans. The representatives recommended that implementation focus on a narrow geographic area by developing county or city PA plans and engaging local community members in using the new WVPAP as a source of activities from which to pick and accomplish during a specific period. This approach is similar to evaluation recommendations about state and local use of the NPAP in Texas [20,22]. The EA process proved flexible and valuable in engaging community stakeholders in developing implementation and evaluation recommendations for the iteration of the WVPAP, and we recommend EA as a way to advance planning for PA programs
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Free) 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call
