| Literature DB >> 23031359 |
Janet Withall1, Russell Jago, Kenneth R Fox.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The beneficial effect of physical activity for the prevention of a range of chronic diseases is widely acknowledged. These conditions are most prevalent in low-income groups where physical activity levels are consistently lower. Social marketing is the government's recommended approach to promoting physical activity but evidence of its effectiveness is limited. The purpose of this study was to examine the effect of a social marketing campaign on the monthly recruitment, attendance and retention levels at a community-based physical activity programme in a low income area.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2012 PMID: 23031359 PMCID: PMC3485196 DOI: 10.1186/1471-2458-12-836
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Public Health ISSN: 1471-2458 Impact factor: 3.295
Summary input from formative research into campaign planning
| Survey of session participants
[ | Focus on attracting local participants required |
| | Community-developed sessions most successful in terms of participation |
| | Dance sessions potentially popular approach to increasing participation |
| | Interest, enjoyment and socialising key to retention |
| | A mechanism to increase awareness and complement and amplify word of mouth is required |
| | Current promotional activities largely limited to informational fliers and poster |
| Interviews with session deliverers and non-participants
[ | Levels of awareness of health benefits of exercise are high |
| | Cost and childcare stated as practical barriers to participation |
| | Low session awareness amongst the target audience |
| | Different motivations for activity initiation (weight loss, physical and mental health, fitness) and activity maintenance (fun, interest and sociability) |
| | Specific social support required by most women to attend organised exercise sessions (attending with a friend) |
| | Issues of perceived competence particularly in comparison to other session attendees |
| Application of exchange theory required to enhance the attractiveness of exercise and increase its priority so combating issues of lack of time |
Figure 1Fit and Fab Outdoor banner (8ft x 3ft).
Figure 2Flyer – launch version.
Social marketing campaign budget
| Design and branding | 1600 |
| Flyers | 700 |
| Banners | 750 |
| Posters | 390 |
| On site display and signage | 295 |
| Loyalty scheme | 505 |
| Leaflet distribution and delivery | 880 |
| Text campaign | 80 |
| Campaign launch event | 485 |
| Subsidy for free and £1 sessions (leaders and room hire) | 1710 |
| Blog design, development and hosting | 90 |
Comparison of mean weekly recruitment (expressed for each month) at intervention, pre-existing and control sessions
| Sept 2010 | na | .86 (1.10) | 1.28 (1.46) | |||
| Oct 2010 | 18.13 (12.30) a, b | 1.04 (.42) a | .30 (.41) b | |||
| Nov 2010 | 2.25 (1.68) | .78 (.41) | .31 (.38) | |||
| Dec 2010 | 1.00 (.35) | .78 (.61) | .08 (.14) | |||
| Jan 2011 | 3.53 (3.03) | 1.29 (.43) | .38 (.595) | |||
| Feb 2011 | 3.45 (.81) a, b | .84 (.26) a | .25 (.50) b | |||
| Mar 2011 | 5.60 (1.69)a, b | .65 (.25) a | .25 (.29) b |
Superscripts (a, b, c) indicate mean difference in Bonferroni comparisons (p < 0.05).
a = Fit and Fab v pre-existing sessions, b = Fit and Fab v control area sessions, c = pre-existing sessions v control area sessions.
Communications mechanisms reported as important to recruitment in early and late stages of the intervention (n = number of people reporting each factor as an influence)
| Posters | 25 (35.20) | 7 (17.50) | 21.938, 4 | |
| Outdoor banner | 15 (21.10) | 3 (7.50) | | |
| Word of mouth | 11. (15.50) | 23 (57.50) | | |
| Doordrop leaflet | 15 (21.10) | 6 (15.00) | | |
| Leaflet from child’s school | 5 (7.00) | 1 (2.50) |
Comparison of mean weekly recruitment (expressed for each month) between different types of intervention sessions
| Oct 2010 | 15.00 (14.93) | 19.0 (17.35) | 14.5 (15.09) | 19.75 (10.15) | 14.75 (9.47) | |||
| Nov 2010 | 1.40 (1.14) | 1.20 (2.68) | 2.25(2.22) | 3.25 (2.99) | 2.75 (1.50) | |||
| Dec 2010 | .50 (.71) | 1.00 (1.41) | 1.00 (1.00) | 1.00 (1.00) | 1.67 (.577) | |||
| Jan 2011 | 4.00 (2.94) | 1.67 (1.16) | 3.33 (4.16) | 5.33 (6.66) | 3.00 (2.65) | |||
| Feb 2011 | 1.50 (1.00) c | 2.00 (1.83) f | 1.75 (.96) h | 7.50 (1.73) c, f, h, j | 4.00 (1.41) j | |||
| Mar 2011 | 5.00 (2.16) c | 1.80 (2.49) f | 2.60 (2.30) h | 13.40 (5.94) c, f, h, j | 6.00 (3.74) j |
Superscripts (a-j) indicate mean difference in Bonferroni comparisons (p < 0.05).
a = Gym v Line Dancing, b = Gym v Body Tone, c = Gym v Zumba, d = Gym v Salsa, e = Line Dancing v Body Tone, f = Line Dancing v Zumba,
g = Line Dancing v Salsa, h = Body Tone v Zumba, i = Body Tone v Salsa, j = Zumba v Salsa.
Figure 3Mean weekly attendances at Fit and Fab, pre-existing and control area sessions.
Comparison of mean weekly attendance (expressed for each month) between different types of intervention sessions
| Oct 2010 | 26.67 (5.51) c | 37.33 (1.53) | 28.25 (7.93) h | 42.50 (6.76) c, h | 33.50 (3.87) | |||
| Nov 2010 | 16.20 (3.90) c | 19.40 (7.57) | 18.00 (3.92) | 31.50 (11.12) c | 24.00 (2.45) | |||
| Dec 2010 | 8.00 (1.41) | 9.5 (3.54) | 6.00 (1.00) h | 14.00 (0.00) h | 10.67 (2.31) | |||
| Jan 2011 | 17.25 (3.86) | 14.33 (2.08) f | 13.67 (3.51) h | 23.33 (2.31) f, h | 21.67 (2.52) | |||
| Feb 2011 | 14.75 (3.54) c,d | 18.50 (1.73) f | 12.50 (3.32) h,i | 34.00 (2.00) c, f, h | 25.25 (2.63) d,i | |||
| Mar 2011 | 19.00 (2.71) c,d | 21.00 (2.55) f,g | 17.20 (2.39) h,i | 48.80 (7.26) c, f, h | 40.00 (5.15) d,g, i |
Superscripts (a-j) indicate mean difference in Bonferroni comparisons (p < 0.05).
a = Gym v Line Dancing, b = Gym v Body Tone, c = Gym v Zumba, d = Gym v Salsa, e = Line Dancing v Body Tone, f = Line Dancing v Zumba,
g = Line Dancing v Salsa, h = Body Tone v Zumba, i = Body Tone v Salsa, j = Zumba v Salsa.
Characteristics of adherers at intervention (Fit and Fab) sessions (n = 38) and non-adherers (n = 27)
| | | | | |
| Male | 1 (2.6) | 2 (7.4) | .82, 1 | .366 |
| Female | 37 (97.4) | 25 (92.6) | | |
| | | | | |
| <18 years | 0 (0.0) | 0 (0) | 11.3, 5 | .046 |
| 18–24 years | 2 (5.4) | 2 (7.7) | | |
| 25–34 years | 7 (18.9) | 9 (34.6) | | |
| 35–44 years | 14 (37.8) | 4 (15.4) | | |
| 45–54 years | 2 (5.4) | 7 (26.9) | | |
| 55–64 years | 7 (18.9) | 3 (11.5) | | |
| 65 years + | 5 (13.5) | 1 (3.8) | | |
| | | | | |
| Underweight (<18.5) | 2 (5.9) | 0 (0.0) | 5.1, 3 | .166 |
| Normal weight (18.5-24.9) | 15 (44.1) | 13 (52.0) | | |
| Overweight (25–29.9) | 15 (44.1) | 7 (28.0) | | |
| Obese (30+) | 2 (5.9) | 5 (20.0) | | |
| | | | | |
| White | 28 (73.7) | 17 (63.0) | 1.9, 3 | .597 |
| Black/Afro-Caribbean | 2 (5.3) | 4 (14.8) | | |
| Asian | 7 (18.4) | 5 (18.5) | | |
| Other | 1 (2.6) | 1 (3.7) | | |
| | | | | |
| BS10 | 27 (71.1) | 18 (66.7) | .14, 1 | .706 |
| Non-BS10 | 11 (28.9) | 9 (33.3) | | |
| | | | | |
| Less than 1 month | 18 (47.4) | 23 (85.2) | 10.9, 2 | .006 |
| 1–3 months | 17 (44.7) | 4 (14.8) | | |
| 4–6 months | 3 (7.9) | 0 (0.0) | | |
| | | | | |
| First time | 6 (15.8) | 10 (37.0) | 5.6, 1 | .060 |
| Every week | 32 (84.2) | 16 (59.3) | | |
| Every other week | 0 (0.0) | 0 (0.0) | | |
| Once a month | 0 (0.0) | 0 (0.0) | | |
| Now and again | 0 (0.0) | 1 (3.7) | | |
| | | | | |
| Yes | 20 (52.6) | 14 (56.0) | .07, 1 | .793 |
| No | 18 (47.4) | 11 (44.0) |