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