Search

Background: Bicycling is a healthy form of physical activity that can be performed by most adults as part of leisure-time (LT) activity. However, little is known about LT bicycling behaviors, especially in the rural areas of the United States. This study sought to contrast the prevalence and factors associated with LT bicycling in populations living in urban settings with those living in rural settings. Methods: The 2019 Behavior Risk Factor Survey, which contains information regarding LT physical activity behaviors among adults (N = 396,261) in the United States, was used to determine the prevalence, demographic profile, and likelihood of meeting the physical activity guidelines of LT bicyclists. The 2013 National Center for Health Statistics Urban/Rural Classification Scheme was used to classify respondents living in rural and urban settings. Results: Among US adults, 3.8% (95% CI, 3.7–3.9) reported LT bicycling activity, the sixth most common physical activity. Adults living in urban counties compared with rural counties had a greater prevalence of LT bicycling (3.9% vs 2.3%, respectively), with adults living in rural counties having a 34% lower probability of LT bicycling. Rural bicycling prevalence rates were lower across all demographics. Urban bicyclists, compared with rural bicyclists, cycled more months of the year. Overall, 85.5% of all bicyclists met the aerobic physical guidelines, with no differences between urban and rural bicyclists. Conclusions: Bicycling remains an important LT physical activity among adults in the United States. However, a rural–urban difference in the prevalence does exist for LT bicycling. The reasons for this disparity warrant further investigation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

It is well known that perceptions of intervention characteristics (e.g., cost, source, evidence strength and quality) are a critical link from dissemination to implementation. What is less known is the process by which researchers understand the characteristics most valued by key intermediaries (i.e., real-world decision-makers), particularly in the federal system of Cooperative Extension. In Extension, university-based specialists are available to assist county-based agents in program selection, delivery, and evaluation. For this work, a sequential explanatory mixed-methods design was used to conduct surveys and semi-structured interviews, informed by the Diffusion of Innovations theory and Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research. Educators and specialists were recruited across 47 states to identify characteristics of health promotion interventions that facilitate the adoption decision-making process. Analysis of intervention attribute importance survey data was conducted through a one-way ANOVA with Bonferroni post hoc test to determine individual variable differences between responses. Interviews underwent a conventional content analysis. In total, 121 educators and 47 specialists from 33 states completed the survey. Eighteen educators and 10 specialists completed interviews. Educators and specialists valued components such as the community need for the intervention, and potential reach compared with other components including previous delivery settings and external funding of the intervention (p < 0.05). Qualitative data indicated divergence between educators and specialists; educators valued understanding the intervention cost (time and training) and specialists valued the evidence base and external funding available. Intervention developers should communicate information valued by different stakeholders to improve the adoption of evidence-based interventions.

The National Cooperative Extension System offers walking programs, but impacts are underreported. One program offered in two state systems is FitEx, an 8-week, group-based behavior change intervention. The purpose of this work was to evaluate FitEx through the RE-AIM (reach, effect, adoption, implementation, maintenance) Framework, with a primary focus on reach and effectiveness (individual-level dimensions). Through a pragmatic, natural experiment, the impact of FitEx was assessed from 2015 to 2020. Reach was operationalized as the number and characteristics of eligible community members who participated. Effectiveness was operationalized as changes in physical activity levels. From 2015 to 2020, there were 1995 FitEx participants (274 ± 233 participants per year) who were 45.22 ± 14.13 years of age, predominantly female (83%) and White (78%). At the start of the program, 33% met physical activity guidelines and during the program 58% met guidelines (X 2(1, 1648) = 1.6; P <.0). The reach and effectiveness of FitEx are comparable to—and in some cases, greater than—similar community-based walking programs. FitEx consistently reached middle-aged insufficiently active adults. Future work is needed to reach a more diverse population, establish objectively measured impacts, and establish a process to scale FitEx across the nation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

FitEx is an 8-week, group-based physical activity and fruit and vegetable consumption program co-created and implemented with the Cooperative Extension System. Effectiveness and delivery personnel perceptions of the program are promising; however, ongoing adaptations are required to continuously meet shifting needs of both researchers and delivery systems. We applied the APDER iterative cycles of implementation over 15 years to understand dynamic and ongoing adaptations as well as implications for FitEx sustainability. Each year, an IRPP between delivery (FitEx deliverers) and research (FitEx developers) systems shared feedback on program core elements and strategies for adaptation through regular team meetings, emails, and evaluations. While the core elements (delivering to groups, goal setting, feedback, and self-monitoring) of FitEx remained consistent, changes were made to address logistical factors, emergent research questions, and technological advancements. For example, program deliverers suggested decreasing training time and making program content available on demand rather than through traditional in-person training. Using APDER with a long-standing IRPP allowed the delivery system to provide feedback to program developers to co-create ongoing adaptations and data-driven decisions. Future work in response to shifting needs includes Fitbit integration and technological updates to the usability of the FitEx platform. Our aim is to report the 15+ years of applying the Assess, Plan, Do, Evaluate, Report (APDER) process with an integrated research–practice partnership (IRPP) for co-creation of ongoing adaptations of FitEx and to share methods for capturing relevant data for decision-making to integrate health promotion programs in community settings. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Interventions undergo adaptations when moving from efficacy to effectiveness trials. What happens beyond these initial steps—that is, when the "research" is over—is often unknown. The degree to which implementation quality remains high and impacts remain robust is underreported as these data are often less valued by community entities. Comprehensive and iterative evaluation is recommended to ensure robust outcomes over time. Methods: The reach, effectiveness, adoption, implementation, and maintenance framework was used within an assess, plan, do, evaluate, report process to determine the degree to which a statewide physical activity promotion program aligned with evidence-based core components, assess who was reached and impacts on physical activity behaviors, and make decisions for future iterations. Results: Walk Across Arkansas was adopted by a majority of delivery agents and was effective at increasing physical activity levels postprogram, but those effects were not maintained after 6 months. Future decisions included recruitment strategies to reach a more diverse population and a blueprint document to reduce program drift. Conclusions: This article details the process of "replanning" a community-based physical activity intervention to understand public health impact and make decisions for future iterations. Pragmatic reach, effectiveness, adoption, implementation, and maintenance questions were useful throughout the assess, plan, do, evaluate, report process. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Built environment approaches are recommended to improve population physical activity levels. Implementation strategies are needed to improve uptake, but little is known about effective strategies to translate research to practice in community settings. Purpose: Inform implementation strategies through understanding delivery agents' perceptions of (1) built environment approaches, (2) a toolkit developed to support implementation, and (3) other required implementation strategies. Method: A toolkit was developed to detail the process of partnering to change the built environment and provide examples of built environment approaches (e.g., walking paths, traffic calming). Data were collected through focus groups (N = 3) with Extension Agents (n = 46) in 2020. The semi-structured focus group script was based on the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research and the Technology Acceptance model. Rapid content analysis techniques and a deductive, grounded theory approach were used to interpret the data. Results. Focus groups generated meaning units coded into themes of perceptions of the intervention (subthemes: barriers, resources needed, and facilitators) and perceptions of the toolkit (subthemes: components to add, positive perceptions, and helpful components). The most common resources needed were coalition guidance and funding. Conclusion: Agents experience barriers and facilitators to implementing built environment approaches and have specific needs for support. Based on the results, we created implementation strategies: (1) Places for Physical Activity toolkit, (2) Coalition Coaching, and (3) Mini-Grants. Future work is needed to investigate the effectiveness of these implementation strategies. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]