Krista Schroeder1, Sarah J Ratcliffe2, Adriana Perez3, David Earley4, Cory Bowman5, Terri H Lipman3. 1. University of Pennsylvania School of Nursing, Philadelphia, PA, United States. Electronic address: krsch@upenn.edu. 2. University of Pennsylvania Perelman School of Medicine, Philadelphia, PA, United States. 3. University of Pennsylvania School of Nursing, Philadelphia, PA, United States. 4. In the Dance, Philadelphia, PA, United States. 5. University of Pennsylvania, Netter Center for Community Partnerships, Philadelphia, PA, United States.
Abstract
PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to evaluate Dance for Health, an intergenerational program to increase access to physical activity in an underserved, high risk urban community. DESIGN AND METHODS: Dance for Health was developed using community-based participatory research methods and evaluated using an observational study design. The program entailed two hour line dancing sessions delivered by trained dance instructors in the neighborhood recreation center. The weekly sessions were delivered for one month in the spring and one month in the fall from 2012-2016. Nurse practitioner students mentored local high school students to assess outcomes: achievement of target heart rate, Borg Rating of Perceived Exertion, number of pedometer steps during dance session, Physical Activity Enjoyment Scale, and adiposity. Analytic methods included descriptive statistics and mixed effects models. RESULTS: From 2012-2016, 521 participants ranging from 2-79 years attended Dance for Health. Approximately 50% of children and 80% of adults achieved target heart rate. Achievement of target heart rate was not related to perceived exertion, though it was related to pedometer steps in adults. All participants rated the program highly for enjoyment. There was no change in adiposity. CONCLUSIONS: Dance for Health demonstrated high levels of community engagement and enjoyment. It led to adequate levels of exertion, particularly for adults. Our evaluation can inform program refinement and future intergenerational physical activity programs. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: Dance is an enjoyable, culturally appropriate, low cost method for increasing access to physical activity for children and families.
PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to evaluate Dance for Health, an intergenerational program to increase access to physical activity in an underserved, high risk urban community. DESIGN AND METHODS: Dance for Health was developed using community-based participatory research methods and evaluated using an observational study design. The program entailed two hour line dancing sessions delivered by trained dance instructors in the neighborhood recreation center. The weekly sessions were delivered for one month in the spring and one month in the fall from 2012-2016. Nurse practitioner students mentored local high school students to assess outcomes: achievement of target heart rate, Borg Rating of Perceived Exertion, number of pedometer steps during dance session, Physical Activity Enjoyment Scale, and adiposity. Analytic methods included descriptive statistics and mixed effects models. RESULTS: From 2012-2016, 521 participants ranging from 2-79 years attended Dance for Health. Approximately 50% of children and 80% of adults achieved target heart rate. Achievement of target heart rate was not related to perceived exertion, though it was related to pedometer steps in adults. All participants rated the program highly for enjoyment. There was no change in adiposity. CONCLUSIONS: Dance for Health demonstrated high levels of community engagement and enjoyment. It led to adequate levels of exertion, particularly for adults. Our evaluation can inform program refinement and future intergenerational physical activity programs. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: Dance is an enjoyable, culturally appropriate, low cost method for increasing access to physical activity for children and families.
Authors: Jacob Sattelmair; Jeremy Pertman; Eric L Ding; Harold W Kohl; William Haskell; I-Min Lee Journal: Circulation Date: 2011-08-01 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: Karin A Pfeiffer; James M Pivarnik; Christopher J Womack; Mathew J Reeves; Robert M Malina Journal: Med Sci Sports Exerc Date: 2002-12 Impact factor: 5.411
Authors: T H Lipman; K D Hench; T Benyi; J Delaune; K A Gilluly; L Johnson; M G Johnson; H McKnight-Menci; D Shorkey; J Shults; F L Waite; C Weber Journal: Arch Dis Child Date: 2004-04 Impact factor: 3.791
Authors: Sean P Mullen; Erin A Olson; Siobhan M Phillips; Amanda N Szabo; Thomas R Wójcicki; Emily L Mailey; Neha P Gothe; Jason T Fanning; Arthur F Kramer; Edward McAuley Journal: Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act Date: 2011-09-27 Impact factor: 6.457
Authors: Yongseop Kim; Junhyoung Kim; Jung-Min Lee; Dong-Chul Seo; Hyun Chul Jung Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2022-04-26 Impact factor: 4.614
Authors: Janet A Deatrick; Heather Klusaritz; Rahshida Atkins; Ansley Bolick; Cory Bowman; Juan Lado; Krista Schroeder; Terri H Lipman Journal: Am J Health Promot Date: 2018-10-24
Authors: Valerio Bonavolontà; Francesca Greco; Umberto Sabatini; Francisco J Saavedra; Francesco Fischetti; Carlo Baldari; Laura Guidetti; Maria Grazia Vaccaro; Gian Pietro Emerenziani Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2021-02-19 Impact factor: 3.390
Authors: Junko Yamasaki; Kayako Sakisaka; Parolita A Mission; Nasudi G Soluta; Norre Jean V Delos Santos; Julie Vannie Palaca; Retz Pol O Pacalioga Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2021-05-17 Impact factor: 3.390