Evaluating Impact and Implementation of Choose to Move (Phase 3)

The single item physical activity questionnaire will be used to measure physical activity (Milton, Bull & Bauman, 2011). Output variable is self-reported number of days/week ≥30 min PA in the past week.

The three-item loneliness scale (Hughes et al., 2004) will be used to assess change in loneliness. Participants rate three aspects of loneliness. The output variable is loneliness score (range 3-9); lower scores indicate lower levels of loneliness.

We assessed social isolation using a three-item questionnaire adapted from two questions on social contact frequency (Veroff et al 1981). The output variable is social isolation score (range 0-15); higher scores indicate less social isolation.

Mobility will be assessed with the Physical Functioning Subscale of the 36-Item Short Form Survey (SF-36; Ware et al., 1989). The measure asks participants to rate if their health limits them in performing 10 different activities. The output variable is an average score from 0-100 of physical functioning, where a higher score indicates a more favourable health state.

The Physical Activity Adult Questionnaire will be used to assess physical activity over the previous 7 days (Garriguet et al 2015). Output variable is minutes of PA/week.

Health status (EQ-5D-5L Profile) will be assessed with the EQ-5D-5L (The EuroQol Group, 1990). Participants report on mobility, self-care, usual activities, pain/discomfort and anxiety/depression on a scale from 1-5 (level of perceived problems) for each item. Responses are used to create a 5-digit number which will be used descriptively.

Health status (EQ-5D-5L Level Sum Score) will be assessed with the EQ-5D-5L (The EuroQol Group, 1990). Participants report on mobility, self-care, usual activities, pain/discomfort and anxiety/depression on a scale from 1-5 (level of perceived problems) for each item. The Level Sum Score uses the 5-digit profile to create a numeric score, with scores ranging from 5-25 (lower levels indicate lower levels of perceived problems).

health status (EQ-5D-5L Visual Analogue Scale) will be assessed with the EQ-5D-5L (The EuroQol Group, 1990). Participants report on their health on a visual analogue scale from 0 (worst health) to 100 (best health).

Two items will assess change in a participants' ability to walk a quarter of a mile and up 10 steps (Simonsick et al., 2008). The output variable is self-reported presence of mobility-disability (no/any difficulty walking 400m or climbing one flight of stairs).

A five-item questionnaire (Marshall et al., 2010) will be used to assess change in sitting time (hours and minutes) each day in the following domains: (a) while travelling to and from places (e.g., work, shops); (b) while at work; (c) while watching television; (d) while using a computer at home; and (e) at leisure not including watching television (e.g., visiting friends, movies, eating out) on a weekday and a weekend day. The output variables are sitting hours per day across 5 domains

We use a six-item questionnaire (Lubben et al., 2006) to assess social isolation. The output variable is an equally weighted sum (range 0-30).

We assess grip strength using a hand grip dynamometer and standard protocols. We combine the best trial from each side and report the sum as total grip strength.

We use the short performance physical battery (SPPB) to assess lower extremity functioning (Guralnik et al 1994). The output variable is an equally weighted sum of 3 subscores (range 0-12); higher scores represent better performance.

We use the CHAMPS questionnaire (Stewart et al 2001) to assess weekly frequency and duration of a variety of physical activities and use the CHAMPS scoring algorithms to calculate energy expenditure (kcal/week) and frequency (times/week).

The number of participants engaged in the intervention is obtained from program records.

The number of organizations and activity coaches delivering the intervention is obtained from program records.

The amount of intervention delivered is assessed via survey (designed in house)

Fidelity to planned delivery is assessed via survey (designed in house) and interview/focus group.

We assess program satisfaction via participant survey (designed in house) and interviews.

We assess adaptation of the intervention and its delivery via survey (designed in house) and interview/focus groups

We use surveys (designed in house) and interviews/focus groups to describe how community level factors, provider characteristics, characteristics of the innovation, the prevention delivery system, organizational capacity and the prevention support system influenced program delivery.

We use a cost capture template to record program delivery costs.