Kathryn Pitkin Derose1, Terry Marsh2, Mark Mariscal3, Sophia Pina-Cortez4, Deborah A Cohen5. 1. RAND Corporation, 1776 Main St, P.O. Box 2138, Santa Monica, CA 90407-2138, USA. Electronic address: derose@rand.org. 2. RAND Corporation, 1776 Main St, P.O. Box 2138, Santa Monica, CA 90407-2138, USA. Electronic address: tmarsh@rand.org. 3. Los Angeles Department of Recreation and Parks, 1670 Palos Verdes Drive North, Harbor City, CA 90710, USA. Electronic address: mark.mariscal@lacity.org. 4. Los Angeles Department of Recreation and Parks, 3900 Chevy Chase Drive, Los Angeles, CA 90039, USA. Electronic address: sophia.pinacortez@lacity.org. 5. RAND Corporation, 1776 Main St, P.O. Box 2138, Santa Monica, CA 90407-2138, USA. Electronic address: dcohen@rand.org.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study is to describe implementation of a randomized controlled trial of community-based participatory research (CBPR) approaches to increase park use and physical activity across 33 diverse neighborhoods in Los Angeles. METHODS:Fifty parks were randomly assigned based on park size, facilities and programs, and neighborhood socio-demographic characteristics to: park director (PD, 17 parks); PD and park advisory board of interested community members (PD+PAB, 16 parks); and no-intervention control (17 parks) arms. Between 2007 and 2012, PDs and PABs from the 33 intervention parks participated in community engagement, baseline assessment, marketing training, intervention design and implementation, and follow-up assessment. RESULTS:Intervention parks (PD and PD+PAB) invested in new and diversified signage, promotional items, outreach or support for group activities like fitness classes and walking clubs, and various marketing strategies. Scaling up CBPR methods across parks in 33 diverse neighborhoods was challenging. Working with departmental management and established structures for community input (PABs) and park policy (PDs) facilitated implementation and sustainability. CONCLUSION: Scaling up CBPR methods across diverse communities involved tradeoffs. CBPR is useful for tailoring research and enhancing community impact and sustainability, but more work is needed to understand how to conduct multi-site trials across diverse settings using CBPR.
RCT Entities:
OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study is to describe implementation of a randomized controlled trial of community-based participatory research (CBPR) approaches to increase park use and physical activity across 33 diverse neighborhoods in Los Angeles. METHODS: Fifty parks were randomly assigned based on park size, facilities and programs, and neighborhood socio-demographic characteristics to: park director (PD, 17 parks); PD and park advisory board of interested community members (PD+PAB, 16 parks); and no-intervention control (17 parks) arms. Between 2007 and 2012, PDs and PABs from the 33 intervention parks participated in community engagement, baseline assessment, marketing training, intervention design and implementation, and follow-up assessment. RESULTS: Intervention parks (PD and PD+PAB) invested in new and diversified signage, promotional items, outreach or support for group activities like fitness classes and walking clubs, and various marketing strategies. Scaling up CBPR methods across parks in 33 diverse neighborhoods was challenging. Working with departmental management and established structures for community input (PABs) and park policy (PDs) facilitated implementation and sustainability. CONCLUSION: Scaling up CBPR methods across diverse communities involved tradeoffs. CBPR is useful for tailoring research and enhancing community impact and sustainability, but more work is needed to understand how to conduct multi-site trials across diverse settings using CBPR.
Authors: David L Katz; Mary Murimi; Anjelica Gonzalez; Valentine Njike; Lawrence W Green Journal: Am J Public Health Date: 2011-06-16 Impact factor: 9.308
Authors: Elva Arredondo; Kristin Mueller; Elizabeth Mejia; Tanya Rovira-Oswalder; Dana Richardson; Tracy Hoos Journal: Health Promot Pract Date: 2013-01-29
Authors: Richard P Troiano; David Berrigan; Kevin W Dodd; Louise C Mâsse; Timothy Tilert; Margaret McDowell Journal: Med Sci Sports Exerc Date: 2008-01 Impact factor: 5.411
Authors: Gina M Besenyi; Paul Diehl; Benjamin Schooley; Brie M Turner-McGrievy; Sara Wilcox; Sonja A Wilhelm Stanis; Andrew T Kaczynski Journal: Transl Behav Med Date: 2016-12 Impact factor: 3.046
Authors: E Anne Lown; Nobuko Hijiya; Nan Zhang; Deo Kumar Srivastava; Wendy M Leisenring; Paul C Nathan; Sharon M Castellino; Katie A Devine; Kimberley Dilley; Kevin R Krull; Kevin C Oeffinger; Melissa M Hudson; Gregory T Armstrong; Leslie L Robison; Kirsten K Ness Journal: Cancer Date: 2016-06-03 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Sandra J Winter; Jylana L Sheats; Deborah Salvo; Jorge A Banda; Jennifer Quinn; Brooke Ray Rivera; Abby C King Journal: J Urban Health Date: 2020-08 Impact factor: 3.671
Authors: Harriet Koorts; Elizabeth Eakin; Paul Estabrooks; Anna Timperio; Jo Salmon; Adrian Bauman Journal: Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act Date: 2018-06-08 Impact factor: 6.457
Authors: Victoria Haldane; Fiona L H Chuah; Aastha Srivastava; Shweta R Singh; Gerald C H Koh; Chia Kee Seng; Helena Legido-Quigley Journal: PLoS One Date: 2019-05-10 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Vincenza Gianfredi; Maddalena Buffoli; Andrea Rebecchi; Roberto Croci; Aurea Oradini-Alacreu; Giuseppe Stirparo; Alessio Marino; Anna Odone; Stefano Capolongo; Carlo Signorelli Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2021-05-12 Impact factor: 3.390