Relationship between the inner setting of CFIR and the delivery of the Healthy School Recognized Campus initiative: a mixed-methods analysis.

Introduction: Healthy School Recognized Campus (HSRC) is a Texas A&M AgriLife Extension initiative that promotes the delivery of multiple evidence-based physical activity and nutrition programs in schools. Simultaneous delivery of programs as part of HSRC can result in critical implementation challenges. The study examines how the inner setting constructs from the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) impact HSRC program delivery.

Methods: We surveyed (n = 26) and interviewed (n = 20) HSRC implementers (n = 28) to identify CFIR inner setting constructs related to program acceptability, appropriateness, and feasibility. Using a concurrent mixed-methods design, we coded interviews using the CFIR codebook, administered an inner setting survey, tested for relationships between constructs and implementation outcomes via chi-square tests, and compared quantitative and qualitative results.

Results: Stakeholders at schools that implemented one program vs. more than one program reported no differences in acceptability, appropriateness, or feasibility outcomes (p > .05); however, there was a substantial difference in reported program minutes (1118.4 ± 951.5 vs. 2674.5 ± 1940.8; p = .036). Available resources and leadership engagement were related to HSRC acceptability (r = .41; p = .038 and r = .48; p = .012, respectively) and appropriateness (r = .39; p = .046 and r = 0.63; p = .001, respectively). Qualitative analyses revealed that tangible resources (e.g., curriculum, a garden) enabled implementation, whereas intangible resources (e.g., lack of time) hindered implementation. Participants also stressed the value of buy-in from many different stakeholders. Quantitative results revealed that implementation climate was related to HSRC acceptability (r = .46; p = .018), appropriateness (r = .50; p = .009), and feasibility (r = .55; p = .004). Learning climate was related to HSRC appropriateness (r = .50; p = .009). However, qualitative assessment of implementation climate subconstructs showed mixed perspectives about their relationship with implementation, possibly due to differences in the compatibility/priority of different programs following COVID-19. Networks/communication analysis showed that schools have inner and outer circles of communication that can either benefit or hinder implementation.

Conclusion: Few differences were found by the number of programs delivered. Implementation climate (i.e., compatibility, priority) and readiness for implementation (i.e., resources and leadership engagement) were important to HSRC implementation. Strategies that focus on reducing time-related burdens and engaging stakeholders may support HSRC's delivery. Other constructs (e.g., communication, access to knowledge) may be important to the implementation of HSRC but need further exploration.