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.
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
- Type of treatment
- Lifestyle or therapy programme
- 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.
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:
- 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.
- Determine whether either of these two approaches changes the perception of park safety and neighborhood safety.
- 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.
- Conditions
- Physical Activity
- 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 group | Role | What they receive |
|---|---|---|
| Frequent User Arm | Experimental | Park users will be able to earn rewards or prizes by coming more frequently to the park Receives: Behavioral: Frequent User |
| Free Physical Activity Classes/programs | Experimental | We will offer at least 100 free physical activity classes at the park Receives: Behavioral: Free physical activity classes |
| Combined arm | Experimental | We will offer free classes and the frequent user program at the park Receives: Behavioral: Free physical activity classes; Behavioral: Frequent User |
| Control | No intervention | Business 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.
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)
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.
- First posted19 Aug 2013 (estimated)
- Study startJun 2013
- Primary completionOct 2015
- Study completionJul 2017
Resources
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govThe registry entry this page is built from, with its full change history.
- Posted resultsParticipant flow, outcome measures and adverse events reported by the sponsor.
- Publications (4)Papers the sponsor has linked to this study.
- Other trials for Physical ActivityStudies of the same condition, open and under way.
- What the trial phases meanHow a treatment moves from first tests in people to approval.
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)
Sponsor and investigators
- Lead sponsor
- RAND
- Sponsor type
- University, hospital or other
- Collaborators
- City of Los Angeles Department of Recreation and Parks, AltaMed Health Services Corporation, National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (NHLBI)
- Responsible party
- Sponsor
- Investigators
- Deborah A Cohen, MD, MPH, Principal investigator, RAND
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
- Results posted
- Yes, on ClinicalTrials.gov
- 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 31518627Cohen 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 30160585Han 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 29338953Derose 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
Study at a glance
From the registry record, last updated by the sponsor on 19 Jun 2018. Recruitment status is as the sponsor reported it: confirm with the study team.
- Official title
- Promoting Physical Activity In High Poverty Neighborhoods
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT01925404
- Acronym / sponsor ID
- 2011-0692-AM02
- Conditions
- Physical Activity
- Keywords
- Physical activity, parks, programming, public health
- Study type
- Interventional
- Recruitment status
- Completed
- Enrolment
- 48 participants (actual)
- Lead sponsor
- RANDUniversity, hospital or other
- Collaborators
- City of Los Angeles Department of Recreation and Parks, AltaMed Health Services Corporation, National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (NHLBI)
- Study start
- Jun 2013 (actual)
- Primary completion
- Oct 2015 (actual)
- Study completion
- Jul 2017 (actual)
- First posted
- 19 Aug 2013 (estimated)
- Results
- Posted 19 Jun 2018
Clinical summary
The research question as the sponsor registered it. This describes what the study plans to test, not what it found.
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.
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:
- 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.
- Determine whether either of these two approaches changes the perception of park safety and neighborhood safety.
- 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.
Study design
- Primary purpose
- Prevention
- Allocation
- Randomised
- Intervention model
- Factorial
- Masking
- None (open label)
- Number of arms
- 4
| Arm | Type | Receives |
|---|---|---|
| Frequent User Arm | Experimental | Behavioral: Frequent UserPark users will be able to earn rewards or prizes by coming more frequently to the park |
| Free Physical Activity Classes/programs | Experimental | Behavioral: Free physical activity classesWe will offer at least 100 free physical activity classes at the park |
| Combined arm | Experimental | Behavioral: Free physical activity classes, Behavioral: Frequent UserWe will offer free classes and the frequent user program at the park |
| Control | No intervention | –Business as usual, no special physical activity programs offered |
Who may qualify
- Ages
- 18 years and older
- Sex
- All
- Healthy volunteers
- Not accepted
- Age groups
- Adult, Older adult
Eligibility is decided by the study team after screening; this overview does not establish that a patient qualifies. Full inclusion and exclusion criteria.
Interventions
| Intervention | Type | Arms |
|---|---|---|
| Free physical activity classes100 hours of free activity classes will be provided | Behavioural | Combined arm, Free Physical Activity Classes/programs |
| Frequent UserParticipants can become eligible for prizes by visiting the park more frequently | Behavioural | Combined arm, Frequent User Arm |
Primary outcome
Percentage Change in Park-based Physical Activity
Time frame: difference between baseline and follow-up (1 year)
Physical activity was measured in MET-hours (Metabolic equivalents)
1 secondary outcome
Park Use (% Change)
Time frame: baseline versus 1 year
Results and safety
Loading the posted results from ClinicalTrials.gov…
Research links
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govLast updated by the sponsor 19 Jun 2018.
- Posted resultsParticipant flow, baseline, all outcome measures and adverse events.
- Derived from this study: PubMed 31518627Derose 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.
- Derived from this study: PubMed 30160585Cohen 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.
- Derived from this study: PubMed 29338953Han 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.
- Derived from this study: PubMed 29241943Derose 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.
- Individual participant dataSharing planned: 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
Related trials for Physical Activity
Recruiting
THE EFFECTS OF GAME-BASED EXERCISE PROGRAMS
Physical Activity, Body Image
Not yet recruiting
Feasibility of a Robot-Guided Active Play Intervention for Children With Cerebral Palsy
Cerebral Palsy
Enrolling by invitation
Online Exercise Program for Transplant Patients: A Pilot Study
Kidney Transplantation, Physical Function
Recruiting
Effect of a Brief Daily Digital Meditation on Well-Being in US Young Adults (BEGIN II)
Mental Health and General Well-being
RecruitingPhase 4
The Effects of Ferric Derisomaltose in Patients With Acute Heart Failure and Iron Deficiency on Exercise Capacity and Quality of Life(COREVIVE-HFrEF)
Heart Failure With Reduced Ejection Fraction, Iron Deficiency
Referral and contact
AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals. Contact the study team or a site listed below; they decide who can take part. This study is not recruiting at the moment.
Deborah A Cohen, MD, MPH principal investigator
RAND
1 site in 1 country: see every site and its status.
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.