Network interventions on physical activity in an afterschool program: an agent-based social network study

Jun Zhang, David A Shoham, Eric Tesdahl, Sabina B Gesell, Jun Zhang, David A Shoham, Eric Tesdahl, Sabina B Gesell

Abstract

Objectives: We studied simulated interventions that leveraged social networks to increase physical activity in children.

Methods: We studied a real-world social network of 81 children (average age = 7.96 years) who lived in low socioeconomic status neighborhoods, and attended public schools and 1 of 2 structured afterschool programs. The sample was ethnically diverse, and 44% were overweight or obese. We used social network analysis and agent-based modeling simulations to test whether implementing a network intervention would increase children's physical activity. We tested 3 intervention strategies.

Results: The intervention that targeted opinion leaders was effective in increasing the average level of physical activity across the entire network. However, the intervention that targeted the most sedentary children was the best at increasing their physical activity levels.

Conclusions: Which network intervention to implement depends on whether the goal is to shift the entire distribution of physical activity or to influence those most adversely affected by low physical activity. Agent-based modeling could be an important complement to traditional project planning tools, analogous to sample size and power analyses, to help researchers design more effective interventions for increasing children's physical activity.

Figures

FIGURE 1—
FIGURE 1—
Comparison of mean moderate-to-vigorous physical activity (MVPA) under different scenarios (100 runs): February–May 2010.
FIGURE 2—
FIGURE 2—
Mean moderate-to-vigorous physical activity (MVPA) distribution in sedentary target scenario: February–May 2010.
FIGURE 3—
FIGURE 3—
Mean moderate-to-vigorous physical activity (MVPA) distribution in random scenario: February–May 2010.
FIGURE 4—
FIGURE 4—
Mean moderate-to-vigorous physical activity (MVPA) distribution in opinion leader scenario: February–May 2010.

Source: PubMed

3
Tilaa