Search

Background: Programs promoting population health through physical activity (PA) and exposure to nature are popular, but few have been evaluated in randomized-controlled trials (RCTs). Objective: To investigate the effectiveness of a park prescription intervention (PPI) for improving total moderate-to-vigorous PA (MVPA), other PA related behaviors, quality of life (QoL) and cardio-metabolic health among adults. Methods: Healthy individuals aged 40 to 65 years were recruited through community health screenings and randomly assigned to 1) PPI: face-to-face Park Prescription + invitation to weekly exercise sessions in parks, or 2) control: standard PA materials. After the six-month intervention, participants completed accelerometer assessments, questionnaires on health behaviors and QoL, and health screenings. Independent sample t-tests were used to compare outcomes between groups, with secondary analysis adjusted for co-variates via multiple linear regression. A p-value <0.05 was considered statistically significant. Results: Eighty participants were allocated to each group. Participants with mean age of 51.1 (Standard Deviation: 6.3) years were predominantly female (79%) and of Chinese ethnicity (81%). Participation in the group exercise started at 48% and declined to 24% by week 26. At six-months, 145 (91%) participants attended health screenings for outcome measure collection, and 126 (79%) provided valid accelerometer data. Time spent in MVPA favored the PPI group but this difference was not statistically significant (4.4 (− 43.8, 52.7) minutes/week; when removing 2 extreme outliers 26.8 (− 9.7, 63.4) minutes/week). Time spent in parks (147.5 (2.1, 292.9) minutes/month), PA in parks (192.5 (59.5, 325.5) minutes/month), and recreational PA (48.7 (1.4, 96.0) minutes/week) were significantly greater in the PPI group. PPI also significantly improved psychological QoL (4.0 (0.0, 8.0). Discussion: PPI improved park use, PA in parks, recreational PA, and psychological QoL but not total MVPA. Future RCTs' are warranted to investigate PPI in different target populations and to provide further evidence for improvements in health outcomes. Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02615392, 26 November 2015. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This mixed-methods study aims to inform the development of a ‘Park Prescription’ intervention, including face-to-face counseling on physical activity and park use and providing weekly structured exercise sessions in the park to promote physical activity. Participants aged 40–65 years were recruited from regional health screening events in Singapore where they completed a questionnaire (N = 97) and consented to focus group (FG) participation (N = 16). The questionnaire assessed current park use, and the type, duration, and intensity of park-based activities that would be of interest. FGs explored the barriers and facilitators of physical activity (in parks). Short interviews (N = 16) with ‘doers’, i.e., people already engaging in park-based physical activity, identified motivational factors and ways to overcome common barriers. Participants acknowledged the health benefits of parks and valued them because of their pleasant landscapes, greenery and facilities. However, few participants engaged in physical activity at the parks, because they were too busy or too tired. Participants mostly indicated doing informal activities, such as walking, cycling or playing traditional Asian games when using the parks for exercise. A variety of low-to-moderate intensity park-based activities such as walking, cycling or aerobics were of interest to participants who expressed the willingness to engage in structured exercise sessions on weekday evenings or weekend mornings. Strategies to increase physical activity in parks included: encourage planning, create social support, identify alternatives for bad weather, improve proximity/accessibility to parks and park safety. The effectiveness of the Park Prescription intervention in promoting physical activity, park use, as well as physical and mental well-being will be tested in a one-year Randomized Controlled Trial. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background Sitting is associated with health risks. Factors that influence sitting are however not well understood. The aim was to examine the biological, socio-demographic, work-related and lifestyle determinants of sitting time (including during transport, work and leisure) in young adult Australian women. Methods Self-reported data from 11,676 participants (aged 22-27 years in 2000) in the Australian Longitudinal Study on Women's Health were collected over 9 years in 2000, 2003, 2006 and 2009. Generalised Estimating Equations were used to examine univariable and multivariable associations of body mass index (BMI), country of birth, area of residence, education, marital status, number of children, occupational status, working hours, physical activity, smoking, alcohol intake and stress with week- and weekend-day sitting time. Results Compared with women in the respective referent categories, (1) women with higher BMI, those born in Asia, those with less than University level education, doing white collar work, working 41-48 hours a week, current smokers, non, rare or risky/ high risk drinkers and those being somewhat stressed had significantly higher sitting time; and (2) women living in rural and remote areas, partnered women, those with children, those without a paid job and blue collar workers, those working less than 34 hours a week, and active women had significantly lower sitting time. Conclusions Among young adult Australian women, those with higher BMI, those born in Asia, those with higher level occupations and long working hours, were most at risk of higher sitting time. These results can be used to identify at-risk groups and inform intervention development. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]