Table 3 RE-AIM evaluation indicators of the HLaC+Txt extended contact intervention

Adoption

Uptake of HLaC+Txt by CCs

• Number of CCs approached ^a

• Number of CCs that declined & reasons ^a

Staff delivering HLaC+Txt

• Qualifications of CC staff delivering the intervention ^a

Adjustments/adaptations/barriers for each CC

• Documentation of telephone/email interactions with CC staff ^a

• Qualitative interviews with CC staff conducted by a researcher (JJ)

Reach

Uptake by HLaC completers & comparison between CCs

• Number of participants approached ^b

• Number of participants deemed ineligible ^b

• Participation rate for those eligible ^b

• Number, timing and reasons for participant withdrawals/ graduations ^a,b

• Program completion rates ^a,b

• A comparison between CCs of all of the above ^a

Characteristics of HLaC+Txt cohort

Data collected via telephone at the baseline HLaC assessment [27]

• Demographic/health characteristics of participants (control/intervention) & those who declined ^b

• Comparison of the characteristics between these three cohorts ^a

• Comparison of the characteristics of those who participated with datasets of national cancer survivors (Australian Institute of Health and Welfare, 2017) to examine representativeness ^a

Implementation

Intervention delivery

• Completion rates and duration of initial and 12-week tailoring interviews ^b

• Number and type of text messages sent to each participant ^c

• Number of prompted/unprompted text message replies from participants ^c

• Number of replies to participant text messages that required the researcher to edit the response ^c

• Participant withdrawal/ graduation rates and average intervention length ^a,b

• Number/modality (text, telephone, or email) of requests received during the intervention to change goals/text preferences or hold texts ^a,b

• A comparison across CCs of all of the above ^a

• Qualitative interviews with CC staff conducted by a researcher (JJ).

Cost of delivery

• Number of CC staff who delivered the intervention ^a,b

• Cost (AUD$): staff time ^a,b & sending text messages ^a

Effectiveness

Anthropometric, physical activity, dietary outcomes

Self-reported during the HLaC+Txt trial pre- ^b & post-program ^a telephone assessments, for control & intervention cohorts

• Weight; waist circumference; MVPA (Australian Institute of Health Welfare, 2003); vegetable & fruit intake (Reeves et al., 2015), fat & fibre behaviour^d (Rutishauser et al., 2001)

Quality of Life^e (Sanderson et al., 2002)

Self-reported during the HLaC+Txt trial pre- ^b and post-program ^a telephone assessments, for control & intervention cohorts

Participant satisfaction with HLaC+Txt program

• At the HLaC+Txt trial post-program assessment all participants rated overall satisfaction with/usefulness of the texts for meeting goals on a five-point scale^a

• Qualitative interviews with a sample of participants by a researcher (JJ).

Unintended consequences

• 12-week tailoring interview ^b

• Documentation of text message, telephone, or email interactions/ satisfaction survey & qualitative interviews with participants at HLaC+Txt trial post-program assessment ^a

Maintenance (individual)

Anthropometric, physical activity, dietary outcomes

Self-reported during the HLaC+Txt trial follow-up assessment for intervention cohort ^a

• Weight; waist circumference; MVPA; vegetable & fruit intake, fat & fibre behavior^a,d

Quality of Life ^e

• Assessed during HLaC+Txt trial follow-up assessment for intervention cohort.

Maintenance (setting)

Intervention continuation

• Documentation & description of processes. ^a