BACKGROUND: The 2010 U.S. National Physical Activity Plan contains a comprehensive set of policies, programs, and initiatives to increase physical activity. PURPOSE: To determine the early awareness, use, diffusion, and implementation of the plan among members of the National Society of Physical Activity Practitioners in Public Health. METHODS: The web-based survey was conducted in 2011 and analyzed in 2011-2012. The survey was guided by the Reach, Effectiveness, Adoption, Implementation, Maintenance (RE-AIM) framework and Diffusion of Innovations theory. Of 492 professional members, 291 responded. RESULTS: Overall, 79% reported awareness of the plan, with higher odds among state practitioners compared to other practitioners and among those with state partnerships to address physical activity compared to those without. Among those who were aware (n=230), 15% reported using the plan ≥6 times, whereas 28% had never used it. For those who referred to the plan at least once in their work (n=165), the most commonly reported uses were for brainstorming and discussion (73%); development and implementation of activities (55%); and state-level goal-setting (34%). Related to diffusion principles, many respondents reported that the plan fit their organization's goals (85%) and was easy to understand (81%), yet fewer agreed that changes made after the plan were easy to observe (32%); easy to implement (28%); and low-cost (25%). CONCLUSIONS: This theory-based evaluation found that the National Physical Activity Plan has been broadly disseminated to physical activity practitioners working in public health. Opportunities exist for public health practitioners and others to more fully integrate the plan into their work.
BACKGROUND: The 2010 U.S. National Physical Activity Plan contains a comprehensive set of policies, programs, and initiatives to increase physical activity. PURPOSE: To determine the early awareness, use, diffusion, and implementation of the plan among members of the National Society of Physical Activity Practitioners in Public Health. METHODS: The web-based survey was conducted in 2011 and analyzed in 2011-2012. The survey was guided by the Reach, Effectiveness, Adoption, Implementation, Maintenance (RE-AIM) framework and Diffusion of Innovations theory. Of 492 professional members, 291 responded. RESULTS: Overall, 79% reported awareness of the plan, with higher odds among state practitioners compared to other practitioners and among those with state partnerships to address physical activity compared to those without. Among those who were aware (n=230), 15% reported using the plan ≥6 times, whereas 28% had never used it. For those who referred to the plan at least once in their work (n=165), the most commonly reported uses were for brainstorming and discussion (73%); development and implementation of activities (55%); and state-level goal-setting (34%). Related to diffusion principles, many respondents reported that the plan fit their organization's goals (85%) and was easy to understand (81%), yet fewer agreed that changes made after the plan were easy to observe (32%); easy to implement (28%); and low-cost (25%). CONCLUSIONS: This theory-based evaluation found that the National Physical Activity Plan has been broadly disseminated to physical activity practitioners working in public health. Opportunities exist for public health practitioners and others to more fully integrate the plan into their work.
Authors: Christine Kimber; Eydie Abercrombie; Jacqueline N Epping; LeeAnn Mordecai; Jimmy Newkirk; Michael Ray Journal: J Phys Act Health Date: 2009-11
Authors: Signe B Daugbjerg; Sonja Kahlmeier; Francesca Racioppi; Eva Martin-Diener; Brian Martin; Pekka Oja; Fiona Bull Journal: J Phys Act Health Date: 2009-11
Authors: Elizabeth A Baker; Ross C Brownson; Mariah Dreisinger; Leslie D McIntosh; Ajlina Karamehic-Muratovic Journal: Health Promot Pract Date: 2009-07
Authors: Daniel B Bornstein; Cheryl Carnoske; Rachel Tabak; Jay Maddock; Steven P Hooker; Kelly R Evenson Journal: J Public Health Manag Pract Date: 2013 May-Jun
Authors: Julie A Jacobs; Paula F Clayton; Cassandra Dove; Tanya Funchess; Ellen Jones; Ghazala Perveen; Brandon Skidmore; Victor Sutton; Sarah Worthington; Elizabeth A Baker; Anjali D Deshpande; Ross C Brownson Journal: BMC Health Serv Res Date: 2012-03-09 Impact factor: 2.655
Authors: Edtna Jauregui; Ann M Pacheco; Erica G Soltero; Teresia M O'Connor; Cynthia M Castro; Paul A Estabrooks; Lorna H McNeill; Rebecca E Lee Journal: BMC Public Health Date: 2015-02-19 Impact factor: 3.295
Authors: Christiaan G Abildso; Samantha Shawley; Sherry Owens; Angela Dyer; Sean M Bulger; Dina L Jones; Emily M Jones; Emily Murphy; Melissa D Olfert; Eloise Elliott Journal: Prev Chronic Dis Date: 2016-12-29 Impact factor: 2.830
Authors: Kelly R Evenson; Sara B Satinsky; Cheryl Valko; Jeanette Gustat; Isobel Healy; Jill S Litt; Steven P Hooker; Hannah L Reed; Nancy O'Hara Tompkins Journal: Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act Date: 2013-06-04 Impact factor: 6.457
Authors: Mark Stevenson; Jason Thompson; Thiago Hérick de Sá; Reid Ewing; Dinesh Mohan; Rod McClure; Ian Roberts; Geetam Tiwari; Billie Giles-Corti; Xiaoduan Sun; Mark Wallace; James Woodcock Journal: Lancet Date: 2016-09-23 Impact factor: 79.321