Skip to main content

Table 3 Reach, adoption, implementation and maintenance (R(E)*-AIM evaluation) of online injury surveillance system over two years

From: Implementing injury surveillance systems alongside injury prevention programs: evaluation of an online surveillance system in a community setting

Study Arm

Study year

Reach

Adoption

Implementation

Maintenance

 

n (%)

n (%)

n (%)

n (%)

1 (n = 22) (Received full delivery support for FootyFirst in years 1 and 2)

1

15 (68%)

12 (55%)

7 (32%)

n/a

 

2

11 (50%)

8 (37%)

7 (32%)

4 (18%)

Both

18 (82%)

15 (68%)

10 (46%)

n/a

2 (n = 31) (Received full delivery support for FootyFirst in year 2 only)

1

10 (32%)

7 (23%)

5 (16%)

n/a

 

2

19 (61%)

11 (36%)

2 (7%)

2 (7%)

Both

22 (71%)

15 (48%)

4 (13%)

n/a

3 (n = 25) (Received minimal delivery support for FootyFirst in years 1 and 2)

1

12 (48%)

3 (12%)

3 (12%)

n/a

 

2

6 (24%)

2 (8%)

2 (8%)

1 (4%)

Both

14 (56%)

4 (16%)

4 (16%)

n/a

Total (n = 78)

1

37 (47%)

22 (28%)

15 (19%)

n/a

 

2

36 (46%)

21 (27%)

11 (17%)

7 (9%)

Both

54 (69%)

34 (44%)

18 (23%)

n/a

  1. NB: Maintenance was always n/a for study year 1 (2012), because it was defined as the proportion of clubs that implemented the system in 2013, after already doing so in 2012.
  2. *NB. Readers are referred to Ekegren et al. [2014]. doi: 10.1111/sms.12216 for the results of the evaluation of the ‘E’ domain of the RE-AIM framework.
  3. Results are displayed as n clubs and percentage of total clubs per FootyFirst study arm.