Esta página foi traduzida automaticamente e a precisão da tradução não é garantida. Por favor, consulte o versão em inglês para um texto fonte.

Promoting Physical Activity In High Poverty Neighborhoods

16 de maio de 2018 atualizado por: RAND
Encouraging greater levels of physical activity is critical to improving health among Americans, who are largely sedentary. Neighborhood parks are resources for physical activity that are available to most Americans within a couple miles of their homes, yet many residents are unaware of the programs and facilities available. Previous research indicates that park use is related to park programming and outreach. Because funding for parks is limited, low-cost interventions are needed to attract more people to parks to engage in moderate-to-vigorous physical activity. While many community-based organizations would like to invest in efforts that increase physical activity, few low-cost park programs are documented to be both scalable and cost-effective. Effective programs that can be replicated to make population-level impacts are needed. The goal of this study is to develop and test 2 low-cost community-level approaches, free exercise classes vs. a frequent user program, to promoting physical activity, singly and in combination, in 48 park settings in Los Angeles low-income neighborhoods.

Visão geral do estudo

Descrição detalhada

While routine physical activity is critical to optimal health, our preliminary studies have indicated that residents of low-income communities in Los Angeles are less likely to exercise than those in high-income communities, and they are less likely to use their neighborhood parks, even when the parks are within walking distance. Parks in low-income neighborhoods tend to be smaller and serve a greater population density, but even after accounting for the size and the population served, they are still used less than parks in wealthier neighborhoods. In our preliminary studies we found that parks in low-income neighborhoods also had fewer part-time staff and offered fewer programs and organized activities than parks in higher-income areas, and these factors partly accounted for their lower use. As well, parks in low-income neighborhoods are often perceived as less safe, a characteristic associated with lower use 4. Simultaneously, the lack of use and dearth of programming may contribute to a perception of lack of safety, creating a vicious cycle. Nonetheless, we have documented that when parks in low-income neighborhoods offer events and activities, they can be just as busy as parks in higher-income areas. We hypothesize that limited park use in low-income areas can be attributed to the lack of organized and reliable infrastructure of activities that meet the needs of local residents and that offering more activities and programs in parks will increase park use and park-based physical activity.

According to the Task Force on Community Level Preventive Services, community-level campaigns are both effective and scalable.6 For the past eight years, we have conducted research in public neighborhood parks and found that these venues offer great potential for increasing physical activity for populations. Based upon this work, as well as our previous work on the cost-effectiveness of physical activity interventions, we propose to test community-level campaigns targeting low-income populations that will be relatively low-cost and easy to replicate.

The proposed study has three specific aims:

  1. Using a full factorial design, compare whether park use and population physical activity in low-income neighborhoods increase with the availability of a) more organized physical activity classes, including zumba, line dancing, and aerobics indoors and outdoors, and/or b) a loyalty program approach that rewards frequent park users.
  2. Determine whether either of these two approaches changes the perception of park safety and neighborhood safety.
  3. Identify the cost effectiveness of both approaches in terms of dollars spent to generate increased physical activity in parks as measured through systematic observation.

Most Los Angeles parks have full-time staff, but their role has become increasingly administrative. Park staff may not have the time or the skills to lead physical activity programs and activities nor conduct effective outreach to the community to promote these activities. Although there is a small literature on "best practices" for parks, there is no underlying foundation of rigorous scientific research, and there has been no identification of which park practices, designs, or activities lead to the most physical activity in a community. Standard practice is currently based primarily on anecdotes, demands of special interest groups, and the experience of professionals. The science of objectively measuring physical activity in parks is new, developed only in the past decade. Because neighborhood parks are settings designed for moderate to vigorous physical activity (MVPA) and are accessible to 70% of the US population, identifying which programs help populations achieve physical activity goals at a reasonable cost would be highly useful, particularly for groups disproportionately affected with chronic diseases that could be reduced with physical activity. Parks are community resources typically funded by dedicated revenue streams and fee-based programs, yet park systems frequently lack the tools and resources to either market programs or measure their reach or effectiveness. Our study will document all the steps required for implementing and maintaining two physical activity promotion interventions--one a standard approach offering traditional organized physical activity programs, the other an innovative application of popular customer loyalty programs. We will determine their impact on physical activity and their cost-effectiveness.

Tipo de estudo

Intervencional

Inscrição (Real)

48

Estágio

  • Não aplicável

Contactos e Locais

Esta seção fornece os detalhes de contato para aqueles que conduzem o estudo e informações sobre onde este estudo está sendo realizado.

Locais de estudo

    • California
      • Santa Monica, California, Estados Unidos, 90407
        • RAND

Critérios de participação

Os pesquisadores procuram pessoas que se encaixem em uma determinada descrição, chamada de critérios de elegibilidade. Alguns exemplos desses critérios são a condição geral de saúde de uma pessoa ou tratamentos anteriores.

Critérios de elegibilidade

Idades elegíveis para estudo

18 anos e mais velhos (Adulto, Adulto mais velho)

Aceita Voluntários Saudáveis

Não

Gêneros Elegíveis para o Estudo

Tudo

Descrição

Inclusion Criteria: Parks are in low-income neighborhoods; individuals visit parks and/or live within 1 mile radius of the park; -

Exclusion Criteria: Parks are not in low income neighborhoods; individuals do not visit the park and do not live within a 1 mile radius

-

Plano de estudo

Esta seção fornece detalhes do plano de estudo, incluindo como o estudo é projetado e o que o estudo está medindo.

Como o estudo é projetado?

Detalhes do projeto

  • Finalidade Principal: Prevenção
  • Alocação: Randomizado
  • Modelo Intervencional: Atribuição fatorial
  • Mascaramento: Nenhum (rótulo aberto)

Armas e Intervenções

Grupo de Participantes / Braço
Intervenção / Tratamento
Experimental: Frequent User Arm
Park users will be able to earn rewards or prizes by coming more frequently to the park
Participants can become eligible for prizes by visiting the park more frequently
Experimental: Free Physical Activity Classes/programs
We will offer at least 100 free physical activity classes at the park
100 hours of free activity classes will be provided
Experimental: Combined arm
We will offer free classes and the frequent user program at the park
Participants can become eligible for prizes by visiting the park more frequently
100 hours of free activity classes will be provided
Sem intervenção: Control
Business as usual, no special physical activity programs offered

O que o estudo está medindo?

Medidas de resultados primários

Medida de resultado
Descrição da medida
Prazo
Percentage Change in Park-based Physical Activity
Prazo: difference between baseline and follow-up (1 year)
Physical activity was measured in MET-hours (Metabolic equivalents)
difference between baseline and follow-up (1 year)

Medidas de resultados secundários

Medida de resultado
Descrição da medida
Prazo
Park Use (% Change)
Prazo: baseline versus 1 year
We will count the number of parks users and compare differences between the number counted at baseline to the number counted at follow-up
baseline versus 1 year

Colaboradores e Investigadores

É aqui que você encontrará pessoas e organizações envolvidas com este estudo.

Patrocinador

Investigadores

  • Investigador principal: Deborah A Cohen, MD, MPH, RAND

Publicações e links úteis

A pessoa responsável por inserir informações sobre o estudo fornece voluntariamente essas publicações. Estes podem ser sobre qualquer coisa relacionada ao estudo.

Datas de registro do estudo

Essas datas acompanham o progresso do registro do estudo e os envios de resumo dos resultados para ClinicalTrials.gov. Os registros do estudo e os resultados relatados são revisados ​​pela National Library of Medicine (NLM) para garantir que atendam aos padrões específicos de controle de qualidade antes de serem publicados no site público.

Datas Principais do Estudo

Início do estudo (Real)

1 de junho de 2013

Conclusão Primária (Real)

1 de outubro de 2015

Conclusão do estudo (Real)

1 de julho de 2017

Datas de inscrição no estudo

Enviado pela primeira vez

15 de agosto de 2013

Enviado pela primeira vez que atendeu aos critérios de CQ

16 de agosto de 2013

Primeira postagem (Estimativa)

19 de agosto de 2013

Atualizações de registro de estudo

Última Atualização Postada (Real)

19 de junho de 2018

Última atualização enviada que atendeu aos critérios de controle de qualidade

16 de maio de 2018

Última verificação

1 de maio de 2018

Mais Informações

Termos relacionados a este estudo

Outros números de identificação do estudo

  • 2011-0692-AM02
  • R01HL114283 (Concessão/Contrato do NIH dos EUA)

Plano para dados de participantes individuais (IPD)

Planeja compartilhar dados de participantes individuais (IPD)?

Sim

Descrição do plano IPD

May be available upon request as appropriate. We have response data from park users and residents living within one mile of enrolled parks. Interested researchers should contact the PI

Essas informações foram obtidas diretamente do site clinicaltrials.gov sem nenhuma alteração. Se você tiver alguma solicitação para alterar, remover ou atualizar os detalhes do seu estudo, entre em contato com register@clinicaltrials.gov. Assim que uma alteração for implementada em clinicaltrials.gov, ela também será atualizada automaticamente em nosso site .

Se inscrever