Table of Contents
Type: Report | Subject: Public Health | Level: Undergraduate | Word Count: ~2,400 words
This model Report was produced by an Essays UK specialist as reference material for learning purposes only. For support in this field, see our health and social care writing support.
Overview: This model report shows how to structure and write an undergraduate evaluation report, using an illustrative local physical-activity campaign as its case study. It applies the RE-AIM evaluation framework, presents illustrative mixed-methods findings in a results table, and sets out evidence-based recommendations, demonstrating the conventions of executive summary, methodology, findings, discussion and referencing expected at this level.
This report evaluates the Active Together campaign, an illustrative twelve-week initiative delivered by a metropolitan borough council in the north of England to increase physical activity among adults aged 18 to 34. The evaluation assesses the extent to which the campaign met its stated objectives and identifies lessons for future public health programming. A mixed-methods approach was adopted, structured around the RE-AIM framework (Glasgow, Vogt and Boles, 1999), and drew on pre- and post-campaign survey data, digital engagement analytics and two focus groups. The findings indicate that the campaign achieved strong reach and engagement but produced more modest behavioural change, with self-reported weekly activity rising mainly among participants who engaged repeatedly rather than across the target population as a whole. Implementation was broadly faithful to the original plan, although delivery in two wards was constrained by limited staffing. The report concludes that the campaign represents a partial success, and it recommends a longer delivery period, closer partnership with community organisations and the integration of routine monitoring to support sustainability. All figures presented in this report are illustrative and have been created for the purposes of this model document.
Physical inactivity is widely recognised as a significant determinant of poor population health and a contributor to avoidable pressure on health and social care systems (World Health Organization, 2018). National guidance in the United Kingdom consistently identifies regular activity as one of the most cost-effective ways of preventing chronic disease and improving wellbeing (Public Health England, 2016; National Institute for Health and Care Excellence, 2018). Patterns of activity are also shaped by the wider social determinants of health, which means that interventions delivered in more deprived communities must contend with structural barriers such as cost, access, transport and time (Marmot et al., 2010). Against this backdrop, local authorities frequently commission short-term behaviour change campaigns intended to raise awareness and encourage participation in everyday activity such as walking, cycling and community sport.
The Active Together campaign, used here as an illustrative case, was designed in response to local data suggesting that younger adults in the borough were less likely than the regional average to meet recommended activity levels. The campaign combined a social media strategy, a series of free community activity sessions and partnerships with local leisure providers. It was commissioned as a pilot, with the expectation that a robust evaluation would inform decisions about any future investment.
The campaign set out a single overarching aim: to increase regular physical activity among adults aged 18 to 34 in the borough. This was supported by three measurable objectives: to reach at least 20,000 residents through digital channels; to recruit 600 participants to community sessions; and to achieve a measurable increase in self-reported weekly activity among those participants by the end of the programme.
The purpose of this report is to evaluate the campaign against these objectives and to assess its wider value for the commissioning authority. The report sets out the evaluation approach, presents the findings, discusses their implications and offers prioritised recommendations. It does not assess long-term health outcomes, which fall outside the evaluation period, nor does it provide a full economic appraisal. The scope is therefore a process and short-term outcome evaluation rather than an impact evaluation.
The evaluation was structured using the RE-AIM framework, which examines interventions across five dimensions: reach, effectiveness, adoption, implementation and maintenance (Glasgow, Vogt and Boles, 1999). The framework was selected because it moves beyond simple measures of participation to consider how, and for whom, an intervention works, and whether its effects are likely to endure (Bauman and Nutbeam, 2013). Given the scope of a twelve-week pilot, this evaluation focuses primarily on reach, effectiveness and implementation, while treating adoption and maintenance more briefly.
A mixed-methods design was used to combine breadth and depth of evidence (Nutbeam, 1998). Three sources of data were drawn upon. First, a pre- and post-campaign survey measured self-reported weekly activity using a short questionnaire modelled on established instruments; 420 participants completed both surveys. Second, digital engagement analytics captured reach, impressions and click-through rates across the campaign’s social media channels. Third, two focus groups, each with eight participants, explored experiences of the community sessions and perceived barriers to sustained activity. Quantitative data were analysed descriptively, while the focus-group transcripts were examined using thematic analysis to identify recurring themes.
Participation in the surveys and focus groups was voluntary, informed consent was obtained, and responses were anonymised before analysis. Several limitations should nonetheless be acknowledged. Self-reported activity is prone to social desirability bias and may overstate behaviour change. The survey sample was restricted to those who had already engaged with the campaign, so the findings cannot be generalised to the whole target population. The absence of a comparison group means that observed changes cannot be attributed to the campaign with certainty, and the short evaluation window prevents any assessment of whether changes were maintained. These limitations are typical of short-term campaign evaluations and are considered again in the discussion.
The campaign exceeded its reach objective. Digital channels generated an illustrative 28,400 unique reach against a target of 20,000, with engagement concentrated in the first four weeks. Community sessions recruited 540 participants, falling short of the 600 target but nonetheless representing substantial local interest. Engagement data suggested that short video content performed considerably better than static posts, a pattern consistent with wider experience of digital health promotion among younger audiences.
Self-reported weekly activity increased among survey respondents, rising from an illustrative mean of 2.1 to 3.0 active sessions per week. However, this improvement was unevenly distributed. Participants who attended three or more community sessions reported the largest gains, whereas those who engaged only with digital content showed little measurable change. This pattern suggests that sustained, in-person participation was the stronger driver of behaviour change, while digital engagement functioned mainly as a route to initial interest and trial.
Adoption among delivery partners was generally good: the majority of invited leisure providers took part, and uptake of the free sessions was strong in central wards. Implementation was broadly faithful to the campaign plan, and sessions ran on schedule in most areas. Two wards, however, experienced reduced provision because of staff shortages, which limited reach in precisely those communities with the greatest need. Focus-group participants valued the sociable, low-pressure nature of the sessions but raised concerns about what would happen once the pilot ended. The table below summarises performance against each objective.
| Key Performance Indicator | Target | Illustrative Result | Status |
|---|---|---|---|
| Digital reach | 20,000 | 28,400 | Exceeded |
| Community participants | 600 | 540 | Partially met |
| Mean weekly activity (post-campaign) | Measurable increase | 2.1 to 3.0 sessions | Met (participants) |
| Delivery fidelity | All wards | 2 wards reduced | Partially met |
The findings present a mixed but broadly positive picture. The campaign clearly succeeded in raising awareness and reaching its intended audience, exceeding its digital reach target and recruiting a large number of participants to community sessions. This indicates that the communication strategy, and particularly the use of short video content, was well matched to the preferences of the 18 to 34 age group. Reach alone, however, is an insufficient measure of success. As the RE-AIM framework emphasises, an intervention that reaches many people but changes the behaviour of few has limited public health value (Glasgow, Vogt and Boles, 1999).
The behavioural findings are therefore the most significant. The concentration of change among repeat attenders suggests that the active, in-person elements of the campaign were more influential than the digital elements, which appear to have served primarily to raise awareness and prompt an initial attempt. This is consistent with behaviour change theory, which holds that lasting change typically requires more than information provision and depends on capability, opportunity and motivation acting together (Michie, van Stralen and West, 2011). The digital campaign seems to have generated motivation and awareness, but without the repeated opportunity and social support offered by the community sessions, this did not reliably translate into sustained activity.
The uneven implementation across wards is also important for interpreting the results. The two wards with reduced provision were among the more deprived in the borough, and the shortfall in delivery risks widening rather than narrowing inequalities in activity, an outcome directly at odds with the campaign’s underlying rationale (Marmot et al., 2010). This highlights a recurring tension in short-term public health programming: resources are often spread thinly, and delivery gaps tend to fall hardest on the communities with the greatest need.
Finally, the evaluation’s limitations temper the strength of any conclusions. The reliance on self-reported data, the restriction of the sample to those already engaged, and the absence of a comparison group mean that the observed changes cannot be confidently attributed to the campaign, and the short time frame leaves the question of maintenance unanswered. These caveats do not negate the findings, but they do indicate that the results should be read as indicative rather than definitive.
Drawing on the findings and discussion, the following recommendations are offered to the commissioning authority. They are ordered by priority.
Taken together, these recommendations are intended to convert the campaign’s strong reach into more consistent and more equitable behaviour change.
This report has evaluated the illustrative Active Together campaign against its stated objectives, using the RE-AIM framework and a mixed-methods evidence base. The campaign was a partial success: it comfortably exceeded its reach objective and recruited a large number of participants, but it produced meaningful behavioural change mainly among those who engaged repeatedly with its in-person offer. Uneven delivery in the most deprived wards, together with the methodological limitations of a short evaluation, means that the results should be interpreted with caution. The central lesson is that reach and awareness, while necessary, are not sufficient for behaviour change, and that sustained, well-resourced and equitably distributed provision is required to achieve lasting public health benefit. The recommendations set out above are designed to help the commissioning authority build on the campaign’s strengths while addressing the weaknesses this evaluation has identified.
You May Also Like
All work is written by human writers. 100% AI free, guaranteed.
100% money back guarantee if you find plagiarism in our work.
COMPANY DETAILS
