Qualitative comparative analysis of the implementation fidelity of a workplace sedentary reduction intervention

Krista S. Leonard, Sarah L. Mullane, Caitlin A. Golden, Sarah A. Rydell, Nathan R. Mitchell, Alexis Koskan, Paul A. Estabrooks, Mark A. Pereira, Matthew P. Buman

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

2 Scopus citations


Background: Stand and Move at Work was a 12-month, multicomponent, peer-led (intervention delivery personnel) worksite intervention to reduce sedentary time. Although successful, the magnitude of reduced sedentary time varied by intervention worksite. The purpose of this study was to use a qualitative comparative analysis approach to examine potential explanatory factors that could distinguish higher from lower performing worksites based on reduced sedentary time. Methods: We assessed 12-month changes in employee sedentary time objectively using accelerometers at 12 worksites. We ranked worksites based on the magnitude of change in sedentary time and categorized sites as higher vs. lower performing. Guided by the integrated-Promoting Action on Research Implementation in Health Services framework, we created an indicator of intervention fidelity related to adherence to the protocol and competence of intervention delivery personnel (i.e., implementer). We then gathered information from employee interviews and surveys as well as delivery personnel surveys. These data were aggregated, entered into a truth table (i.e., a table containing implementation construct presence or absence), and used to examine differences between higher and lower performing worksites. Results: There were substantive differences in the magnitude of change in sedentary time between higher (-75.2 min/8 h workday, CI95: -93.7, -56.7) and lower (-30.3 min/8 h workday, CI95: -38.3, -22.7) performing worksites. Conditions that were present in all higher performing sites included implementation of indoor/outdoor walking route accessibility, completion of delivery personnel surveys, and worksite culture supporting breaks (i.e., adherence to protocol). A similar pattern was found for implementer willingness to continue role and employees using face-to-face interaction/stair strategies (i.e., delivery personnel competence). However, each of these factors were also present in some of the lower performing sites suggesting we were unable to identify sufficient conditions to predict program success. Conclusions: Higher intervention adherence and implementer competence is necessary for greater program success. These findings illustrate the need for future research to identify what factors may influence intervention fidelity, and in turn, effectiveness. Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02566317. Registered 2 October 2015, first participant enrolled 11 January 2016.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Article number1086
JournalBMC Public Health
Issue number1
StatePublished - Dec 2022
Externally publishedYes


  • Adherence
  • Competence
  • Fidelity
  • Implementation
  • Sedentary
  • Workplace

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health


Dive into the research topics of 'Qualitative comparative analysis of the implementation fidelity of a workplace sedentary reduction intervention'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this