Putting it All Together

Now that all the individual dimensions have been reviewed, the next step is to understand how they fit together for a comprehensive evaluation. This involves integrating each piece to assess the full impact of the program. However, this section is still in its early stages and will require further development to fully capture the complexity of the evaluation process.

The RE-AIM Framework

The RE-AIM framework (Glasgow et al., 1999) was designed to provide a systematic way to report on the translatability, robustness, and impact of public health interventions. This approach can include both outcome and process evaluation and quantitative (numbers) data to understand participation and qualitative (words) data to gain an understanding of the “how” and “why” of what happened. It includes the following components (Glasgow et al., 2019):

• Reach refers to the extent to which the intended program participants engage in the program.

• • Effectiveness refers to the intervention’s impact, including potential negative effects.
  • Adoption can refer to the percentage of students/participants, the number of sites that participate in the program, or the number of people who deliver the program.

• Implementation refers to whether all components of the program were successfully implemented as intended, or if adaptations were made.

• Maintenance refers to the long-term maintenance of the program, and whether the behaviour is sustained or the program is institutionalized.

These components can be combined to increase the understanding of the program and processes that support or impede implementation. Evaluation does not need to assess all components of RE-AIM but includes the components most appropriate and beneficial to address properties in the context in which it is being applied.

Glasgow, R., Harden, S., Gaglio, B., Rabin, B., Smith, M., Porter, G., … & Estabrooks, P. (2019). RE-AIM planning and evaluation framework: adapting to new science and practice with a 20-year review. Frontiers in public health, 7, 64.

Further Readings and Frameworks

To support a deeper understanding of the evaluation frameworks relevant to this project, we have compiled a list of additional readings. These resources provide further insights into key concepts, such as outcome and process evaluations, the socio-ecological model, and culturally sensitive approaches to program evaluation. The frameworks listed here may assist in filling gaps in current research and provide foundational theories that inform the development and application of the indicators in this project. Please refer to the following list for further readings and resources:

• Hernandez, K. J., Gillis, D., Kevany, K., & Kirk, S. (2021). Towards a common understanding of food literacy: a pedagogical framework. Canadian Food Studies/La Revue canadienne des études sur l’alimentation, 8(4).

• Martin, A. E., Haines, J., & Fraser, E. D. (2024). Development of the food systems literacy competencies framework for youth: A modified Delphi study with experts. Food Policy, 128, 102702.