Skip to main content

Table 3 Proportion of low- and high-sustainability programs with a positive construct rating, by construct

From: Implementation contextual factors related to community-based active travel to school interventions: a mixed methods interview study

CFIR domain and construct

% agreement between ratersa

N (%) Rated positiveb

Low-sustainability programs

N=9

High-sustainability programs

N=11

1. Interventions characteristics: program source

75%

3 (33.3%)

4 (36.4%)

2. Intervention characteristics: cost

60%

6 (66.7%)

6 (54.5%)

3. Outer setting: student/family needs and resources

65%

9 (100%)

8 (72.7%)

4. Outer setting: student/family needs and resources - built environment

80%

6 (55.7%)

3 (27.3%)

5. Inner setting: implementation climate

40%

7 (77.8%)

8 (72.7%)

6. Inner setting: relative priority

75%

3 (33.3%)

5 (45.5%)

7. Inner setting: organizational incentives and rewards

90%

5 (55.6%)

9 (81.8%)

8. Inner setting: leadership engagement

85%

6 (66.7%)

8 (72.7%)

9. Inner setting: available resources

70%

7 (77.8%)

5 (45.5%)

10. Inner setting: access to knowledge and information

85%

8 (88.9%)

7 (63.6%)

11. Process: planning

90%

8 (88.9%)

10 (90.9%)

12. Process: engaging route leaders

45%

5 (55.6%)

5 (45.5%)

13. Process: engaging students and parents

70%

5 (55.6%)

11 (100%)

14. Process: engaging external change agentsc

93%

4 (57.1%)

5 (71.4%)

15. Process: reflecting and evaluating

85%

3 (33.3%)

6 (54.5%)

  1. aBased on the initial ratings, which were prior to discrepancies being reconciled
  2. bBased on final ratings, which reflect consensus between raters established through reconciliation
  3. cItem was only asked in the 7 low-sustainability and 7 high-sustainability programs that were coordinated by a parent or school member