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.