Integrated research-practice partnerships (IRPPs) may improve adoption of evidence-based programs. The aim of this study is to compare adoption of an IRPP-developed physical activity (PA) program (Fit Extension, FitEx) to a typical efficacy-effectiveness-dissemination pipeline model program (Active Living Every Day, ALED). Guided by the Reach Effectiveness Adoption Implementation Maintenance (RE-AIM) framework, a randomized controlled trial assigned health educators (HEs) to FitEx (n = 18) or ALED (n = 18). Fourteen HEs adopted FitEx, while two HEs adopted ALED (χ 2 = 21.8; p < 0.05). FitEx HEs took less time to deliver (p < 0.05), stated greater intentions for continued program delivery (p < 0.05), and reached more participants (n = 1097 total; 83 % female; 70 % Caucasian; M age = 44 ± 11.8) per HE than ALED (n = 27 total; 60 % female; 50 % Caucasian; M age = 41 ± 11.3). No significant difference existed in FitEx or ALED participants' increased PA (M increase = 9.12 ±29.09 min/day; p > 0.05). IRPP-developed programs may improve PA program adoption, implementation, and maintenance and may also result in programs that have higher reach-without reducing effectiveness.
Keywords: Physical activity; RE-AIM; Research-practice; Translation.