AzTrials
AzTrials

Physical ActivityNCT01925404

Promoting Physical Activity In High Poverty Neighborhoods

A study testing Free physical activity classes and Frequent User in people with Physical Activity, run by RAND at 1 site in United States.

Completed

Finished. The study has ended and is not enrolling. Results may be posted on the official record.

Official record
Search all trials

Trial summary

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… Read more about this study

Who is it for?
Ages 18 years and older
Conditions the study is for
Physical Activity
What is being tested?
Free physical activity classes and Frequent User
Could I receive a placebo?
No, everyone receives an active treatment
How many people
48 participants
Where
1 siteUnited States
Study dates
Jun 2013to Jul 2017
Phase
Interventional
Are there results?
Yes, posted in the registrySummary in the doctors' view

Key requirements

Who can take part, as listed by the sponsor. Only the study team can confirm whether you are eligible, so take this list to your doctor.

  • Ages 18 years and older
  • All sexes
  • No healthy volunteers
  • Adult, Older adult

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

-

Trial locations and contacts

1 site in 1 country.

United States1 site
  • RAND

    Santa Monica, California, 90407

Other trials in United States

About this study

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.

Read the detailed description

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.

Being tested
Free physical activity classes, Frequent User
Keywords
Physical activity, parks, programming, public health
Medical subject headings
Motor Activity

What participants receive

What participants receive. In a randomised study each person is assigned to one group by chance.

  • Free physical activity classesBehavioural

    100 hours of free activity classes will be provided

  • Frequent UserBehavioural

    Participants can become eligible for prizes by visiting the park more frequently

Study groups in NCT01925404
Study groupRoleWhat they receive
Frequent User ArmExperimentalPark users will be able to earn rewards or prizes by coming more frequently to the park
Receives: Behavioral: Frequent User
Free Physical Activity Classes/programsExperimentalWe will offer at least 100 free physical activity classes at the park
Receives: Behavioral: Free physical activity classes
Combined armExperimentalWe will offer free classes and the frequent user program at the park
Receives: Behavioral: Free physical activity classes; Behavioral: Frequent User
ControlNo interventionBusiness as usual, no special physical activity programs offered

What is being measured

The primary outcome is the main question the study is designed to answer.

  1. Percentage Change in Park-based Physical Activity

    Physical activity was measured in MET-hours (Metabolic equivalents)

    Measured: difference between baseline and follow-up (1 year)

Secondary outcomes (1)
  1. Park Use (% Change)

    We will count the number of parks users and compare differences between the number counted at baseline to the number counted at follow-up

    Measured: baseline versus 1 year

Timeline

From the start of the study to its completion; the mark is today. Estimated dates are the sponsor’s plan.

  1. First posted19 Aug 2013 (estimated)
  2. Study startJun 2013
  3. Primary completionOct 2015
  4. Study completionJul 2017

Resources

More details

For doctors and researchers: how the study is designed, who runs it, and its registry IDs.

Study design
Study type
Interventional
Phase
Phase N/A
Primary purpose
Prevention
Allocation
Randomised
Intervention model
Factorial
Masking
None (open label)
Enrolment
48 participants (actual)
IDs, dates and publications
ClinicalTrials.gov ID
NCT01925404
Sponsor's protocol ID
2011-0692-AM02
Other IDs
R01HL114283
Status last verified
May 2018
First submitted
15 Aug 2013
Last updated
19 Jun 2018
Data monitoring committee
Yes
Individual data sharing
Yes: 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

Publications

  • Derose KP, Han B, Park S, Williamson S, Cohen DA. The mediating role of perceived crime in gender and built environment associations with park use and park-based physical activity among park users in high poverty neighborhoods. Prev Med. 2019 Dec;129:105846. doi: 10.1016/j.ypmed.2019.105846. Epub 2019 Sep 10.

    PubMed 31518627
  • Cohen DA, Han B, Park S, Williamson S, Derose KP. Park Use and Park-Based Physical Activity in Low-Income Neighborhoods. J Aging Phys Act. 2019 Jun 1;27(3):334-342. doi: 10.1123/japa.2018-0032. Epub 2018 Nov 21.

    PubMed 30160585
  • Han B, Cohen DA, Derose KP, Li J, Williamson S. Violent Crime and Park Use in Low-Income Urban Neighborhoods. Am J Prev Med. 2018 Mar;54(3):352-358. doi: 10.1016/j.amepre.2017.10.025. Epub 2018 Jan 12.

    PubMed 29338953
  • Derose KP, Han B, Williamson S, Cohen DA. Gender Disparities in Park Use and Physical Activity among Residents of High-Poverty Neighborhoods in Los Angeles. Womens Health Issues. 2018 Jan-Feb;28(1):6-13. doi: 10.1016/j.whi.2017.11.003. Epub 2017 Dec 11.

    PubMed 29241943

Questions about this trial

What is this clinical trial studying?

A study testing Free physical activity classes and Frequent User in people with Physical Activity, run by RAND at 1 site in United States.

The full registered description is in the About this study section and the official record.

Who may be eligible to take part?

Eligibility is decided by the study team after screening, so read the full criteria and contact a listed site.

Is this clinical trial currently recruiting?

The record says: finished, as of the sponsor's last update on 19 Jun 2018. Status can change between updates, so confirm with the study contact before making plans.

Where is the study taking place?

The record lists 1 site in United States. Whether a site is taking part right now should be confirmed with that site. See every site.

What are the possible benefits and risks?

They depend on the study and the treatment, and no study can promise a benefit. The study team explains the known risks during informed consent, before anyone joins; the record itself does not list them.

Are results available for this study?

Yes. Results are posted in the registry (first posted 19 Jun 2018). A summary is in the For doctors view, and the full results are on ClinicalTrials.gov.

How can a doctor refer a patient or contact the research team?

The record lists no contact. The official record names the sponsor, who can be asked directly. AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals.

What does the primary outcome measure?

Percentage Change in Park-based Physical Activity (time frame: difference between baseline and follow-up (1 year)). It is what the study was designed to measure, not a finding.

Where can I read the original study information?

On the ClinicalTrials.gov record for NCT01925404, which also lists 4 linked publications.

Does a listing mean the treatment is approved or proven to work?

No. A listing means the study is registered. It does not show that the treatment is safe, works, or is approved by a regulator.

How often is this information updated?

AzTrials copies changed records from ClinicalTrials.gov every night and reloads the whole registry every week. The sponsor last updated this record on 19 Jun 2018.

Free account

Log in to keep searching

You’ve used your 3 free searches. AzTrials is free: log in or create a free account to keep searching clinical trials and save the ones you want to follow.

Create a free accountLog in