Poster Presentation Australian and New Zealand Obesity Society Annual Scientific Conference 2024

How can evidence-based early childhood obesity prevention programs achieve adoption, integration and scale-up:  A comparative case study (#211)

Jessica Appleton 1 2 , Li Ming Wen 1 3 , Louise Baur 1 4 , Elizabeth Denney-Wilson 1 , Erin Kerr 3 , Rachel Laws 5 , Penny Love 5 , Konsita Kuswara 1
  1. Faculty of Medicine and Health, University of Sydney, Camperdown, NSW, Australia
  2. School of Nursing and Midwifery, University of Technology Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia
  3. Population Health Research & Evaluation Hub, Sydney Local Health District, Sydney, NSW, Australia
  4. Weight Management Services, The Children's Hospital at Westmead, Sydney, NSW, Australia
  5. Institute for Physical Activity and Nutrition, Deakin University, Burwood, Victoria, Australia

Introduction: Obesity prevention programs in early childhood focus on addressing known modifiable risk factors for overweight and obesity. While there are programs that have demonstrated effectiveness in modifying risk factors, integrating these programs into routine service delivery remains a challenge.1

Aim: To explore how early childhood obesity prevention programs achieve adoption integration and scale up by comparing two programs developed in two Australia states.

Methods: Following a case study methodology,2 data were derived from multiple sources including publicly available documentation, targeted interviews and field notes. Case descriptions of each case are written guided by the scale-up reflection guide,3 followed by interviews with a purposeful stratified sample of interventionists, researchers, policy makers, managers, and clinicians involved in the development and implementation of each case. The interview guide and the analytic lens are informed by the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research,4 the Health Equity Implementation Framework,5 and a Network perspective.6 The interview transcripts will be analysed thematically utilising the template analysis technique.7

Results: To date, the two case descriptions are written, and interviews have commenced. Some similarities and variations in the cases are apparent. Both cases received national funding for the effectiveness trials, have completed further adaption of the program and have been integrated into service delivery. However, one program has achieved more spread to multiple sites whereas the other has had more limited spread. Two notable differences are the program achieving more spread was perceived as less expensive and has been included in two state policy strategies. Further data collection and analysis will provide additional insight into each case. 

Conclusion: Identifying variation between the two cases will provide an understanding of how program’s do or do not achieve adoption and integration in primary health care systems to reach the general as well as priority populations.