Nicholas Petrunoff1, Jiali Yao2, Angelia Sia3, Alwyn Ng2, Anbumalar Ramiah4, Michael Wong4, Jane Han4, Bee Choo Tai2, Léonie Uijtdewilligen2, Falk Müller-Riemenschneider2,5. 1. Saw Swee Hock School of Public Health, National University of Singapore, Block MD1, 12 Science Drive 2, #10-01, Singapore, 117549, Singapore. nickpetrunoff@nus.edu.sg. 2. Saw Swee Hock School of Public Health, National University of Singapore, Block MD1, 12 Science Drive 2, #10-01, Singapore, 117549, Singapore. 3. Centre for Urban Greenery & Ecology, National Parks Board Singapore, 1E Cluny Rd., Singapore Botanic Gardens, Singapore, 259569, Singapore. 4. Health for Life Centre, Khoo Teck Puat Hospital, Alexandra Health Pte Ltd. 90 Yishun Central, Singapore, 768828, Singapore. 5. Institute for Social Medicine, Epidemiology and Health Economics, Charite University Medical Centre Berlin, Luisenstrasse 57, 10117, Berlin, Germany.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: This process evaluation explored the implementation and mechanisms of impact of a Park Prescription Intervention trial (PPI), including the effects of hypothesised mediators (motivation, social support, recreational physical activity [PA], park use and park PA) on trial outcomes. METHODS: Participants from the community were randomly allocated to intervention (n = 80) or control (n = 80) group. The intervention included baseline counselling, a prescription of exercise in parks, materials, three-month follow-up counselling and 26 weekly group exercise sessions in parks. Process evaluation indicators were assessed at three- and six-months. Implementation indicators included participation rates in intervention components and survey questions plus focus group discussions (FGDs) to understand which components participants valued. FGDs further assessed barriers and facilitators to intervention participation. To explore mechanisms of impact, linear regression was used to compare objectively measured PA between quantiles of group exercise participation. Structural equation modelling (SEM) explored hypothesised mediation of the significant intervention effects. Framework analysis was conducted for FGDs. RESULTS:Participants were middle-aged (mean 51, SD ± 6.3 years), predominantly female (79%) and of Chinese ethnicity (81%). All intervention participants received baseline counselling, the park prescription and materials, whilst 94% received the follow-up counselling. Mean minutes of moderate-to-vigorous PA/week (95% CI) differed by group exercise participation (p = 0.018): 0% participation (n = 18) 128.3 (69.3, 187.2) minutes, > 0-35.9% participation (n = 18) 100.3 (36.9, 163.6) minutes, > 35.9-67.9% participation (n = 17) 50.5 (- 4.9, 105.9) minutes and > 67.9% participation (n = 18) 177.4 (122.0, 232.8) minutes. Park PA at three-months had significant mediating effects (95% CI) on recreational PA 26.50 (6.65, 49.37) minutes/week, park use 185.38 (45.40, 353.74) minutes/month, park PA/month 165.48 (33.14, 334.16) minutes and psychological quality of life score 1.25 (0.19, 2.69) at six-months. Prioritising time with family and preferences for unstructured activities were barriers to intervention participation. Human interaction via follow-up or group exercise were facilitators. CONCLUSION: This process evaluation showed park PA consistently mediated effects of the PPI, suggesting activity in parks was a mechanism of its effects. To optimise effectiveness, participants' preference for prioritising time with family through family involvement and tailoring the intervention to participants' preferences for structured or unstructured PA could be considered in future studies. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02615392 , 26 November 2015.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND: This process evaluation explored the implementation and mechanisms of impact of a Park Prescription Intervention trial (PPI), including the effects of hypothesised mediators (motivation, social support, recreational physical activity [PA], park use and park PA) on trial outcomes. METHODS:Participants from the community were randomly allocated to intervention (n = 80) or control (n = 80) group. The intervention included baseline counselling, a prescription of exercise in parks, materials, three-month follow-up counselling and 26 weekly group exercise sessions in parks. Process evaluation indicators were assessed at three- and six-months. Implementation indicators included participation rates in intervention components and survey questions plus focus group discussions (FGDs) to understand which components participants valued. FGDs further assessed barriers and facilitators to intervention participation. To explore mechanisms of impact, linear regression was used to compare objectively measured PA between quantiles of group exercise participation. Structural equation modelling (SEM) explored hypothesised mediation of the significant intervention effects. Framework analysis was conducted for FGDs. RESULTS:Participants were middle-aged (mean 51, SD ± 6.3 years), predominantly female (79%) and of Chinese ethnicity (81%). All intervention participants received baseline counselling, the park prescription and materials, whilst 94% received the follow-up counselling. Mean minutes of moderate-to-vigorous PA/week (95% CI) differed by group exercise participation (p = 0.018): 0% participation (n = 18) 128.3 (69.3, 187.2) minutes, > 0-35.9% participation (n = 18) 100.3 (36.9, 163.6) minutes, > 35.9-67.9% participation (n = 17) 50.5 (- 4.9, 105.9) minutes and > 67.9% participation (n = 18) 177.4 (122.0, 232.8) minutes. Park PA at three-months had significant mediating effects (95% CI) on recreational PA 26.50 (6.65, 49.37) minutes/week, park use 185.38 (45.40, 353.74) minutes/month, park PA/month 165.48 (33.14, 334.16) minutes and psychological quality of life score 1.25 (0.19, 2.69) at six-months. Prioritising time with family and preferences for unstructured activities were barriers to intervention participation. Human interaction via follow-up or group exercise were facilitators. CONCLUSION: This process evaluation showed park PA consistently mediated effects of the PPI, suggesting activity in parks was a mechanism of its effects. To optimise effectiveness, participants' preference for prioritising time with family through family involvement and tailoring the intervention to participants' preferences for structured or unstructured PA could be considered in future studies. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02615392 , 26 November 2015.
Entities:
Keywords:
Mediation analysis; Parks; Physical activity; Process evaluation; Urban green space
Authors: Stefania Toselli; Laura Bragonzoni; Laura Dallolio; Grigoletto Alessia; Alice Masini; Sofia Marini; Giuseppe Barone; Erika Pinelli; Raffaele Zinno; Mario Mauro; Gerardo Astorino; Pietro Loro Pilone; Simona Galli; Pasqualino Maietta Latessa Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2022-02-14 Impact factor: 3.390
Authors: Yen Sin Koh; P V Asharani; Fiona Devi; Kumarasan Roystonn; Peizhi Wang; Janhavi Ajit Vaingankar; Edimansyah Abdin; Chee Fang Sum; Eng Sing Lee; Falk Müller-Riemenschneider; Siow Ann Chong; Mythily Subramaniam Journal: BMC Public Health Date: 2022-05-26 Impact factor: 4.135