| Session Title: Monitoring Contextual Factors in Physical Activity Interventions That Target Change in the Social and Physical Environment |
| Multipaper Session 222 to be held in Suwannee 11 on Thursday, Nov 12, 9:15 AM to 10:45 AM |
| Sponsored by the Health Evaluation TIG |
| Chair(s): |
| Dawn Wilson, University of South Carolina, wilsondk@mailbox.sc.edu |
| Abstract: Evidence supporting the influence of the social and physical environment on physical activity (PA) has given rise to environmentally-based interventions which seek to increase healthy behaviors. Such interventions posit that social environmental characteristics (e.g., social support and networks, collective efficacy, community connectedness) and physical environmental factors (e.g., neighborhood and/or school characteristics, access to safe places to engage in PA) can positively influence targeted populations of individuals to engage in PA. Evaluators involved in environmentally-based PA interventions must engage in processes to conceptualize and define theoretical and cultural based social and physical environment factors. In addition, important contextual features of the setting in which the intervention takes place should be identified and assessed. This presentation will discuss how three contextually different environmental PA interventions 1) conceptualize the physical and social environment, 2) measure these multi-level variables through multiple methods, and 3) evaluation findings will be described. An interactive discussion will follow. |
| Environmentally-focused Interventions for Promoting Physical Activity in Children and Adolescents in Different Organizational Settings: Theory, Measurement, and Meaning |
| Ruth Saunders, University of South Carolina, rsaunders@sc.edu |
| Dawn Wilson, University of South Carolina, wilsondk@mailbox.sc.edu |
| Sarah Griffin, Clemson University, sgriffi@exchange.clemson.edu |
| This presentation will feature two environmentally-focused interventions for promoting physical activity in youth within organizational settings: school-based Active by Choice Today (ACT) and Environmental Interventions in Children's Homes (ENRICH). These approaches pose unique challenges for evaluators, including the scarcity of environmental-level conceptual models, challenges of developing measures to assess implementation of physical and social environment changes, and challenges of collecting, synthesizing, and using implementation data in a meaningful way. ACT used elements from both social cognitive and self-determination theories to define the "autonomy-supportive" after-school program environment, and ENRICH defined a "healthy home environment" based on the Structural Ecologic Model. Theory-based implementation measures will be shared from ACT and ENRICH including observational tools, interviews, and rating scales, as well as approaches for monitoring influential contextual factors, including organizational characteristics and the external environment. Strategies for presenting and using implementation data in a meaningful and timely manner will also be discussed. |
| Defining and Measuring the Social Environment in a Neighborhood-based Environmental Intervention to Increase Physical Activity in Adults |
| Sarah Griffin, Clemson University, sgriffi@exchange.clemson.edu |
| Dawn Wilson, University of South Carolina, wilsondk@mailbox.sc.edu |
| Abraham Wandersman, University of South Carolina, wanderah@gwm.sc.edu |
| Neve Trumpeter, University of South Carolina, neve.trumpeter@gmail.com |
| Sara Mijares, University of South Carolina, se.mijares@gmail.com |
| Duncan Meyers, University of South Carolina, meyersd@mailbox.sc.edu |
| This presentation will feature a neighborhood based environmental intervention to increase physical activity in adults: Positive Actions for Today's Health (PATH). PATH aims to increase physical activity through working with neighborhood leaders to change social and physical environment support for walking. Evaluators were challenged with developing a collaborative planning process that also identified essential individual, social and physical environment components of the program for assessment. To this end, the evaluators used the FORECAST (FORmative Evaluation, Consultation and Systems Technique). PATH uses the social ecological model and worked with neighborhood leaders to define a supportive, safe neighborhood for walking. We will share how theory-based social environment implementation measures within PATH were identified and defined as well as data collection tools used to collect these measures. We will also discuss identification and tracking of neighborhood contextual factors. Lastly, we will share processes used for sharing information in a timely and meaningful manner. |
| Evaluating Relationships Between Physical and Social Environmental Features and Community Walking With Observational Methods and Geographic Information Systems |
| Duncan Meyers, University of South Carolina, meyersd@mailbox.sc.edu |
| Dawn Wilson, University of South Carolina, wilsondk@mailbox.sc.edu |
| Barbara Ainsworth, Arizona State University, barbara.ainsworth@asu.edu |
| Environmental supports for physical activity (PA) - such as recreational trails - are important contextual influences for healthy behaviors. While evidence links attributes of the physical environment to health behaviors such as walking, gaps still exist in regard to how such contextual factors interact with social environmental influences (e.g., community connectedness, social networks, social support). The evaluation of an NIH funded grant "Positive Action for Today's Health" (PATH) was expanded to include spatial analyses (via standardized observational methods in conjunction with geographic information systems [GIS]) and additional survey items to assess these factors over time. This presentation will discuss how the supplemental evaluation 1) targets theoretically-derived mechanisms of change in the social and physical environment; 2) conceptualizes and measures variables used in GIS analyses; and 3) assesses relationships between geospatial variables and participant perceptions of social environmental supports (i.e., socio-cultural contextual influences) through a mixed-methods approach. |