View
810
Download
1
Category
Tags:
Preview:
DESCRIPTION
Health Evidence hosted a 90 minute webinar, funded by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research (KTB-112487), on community-wide interventions for increasing physical activity. Key messages and implications for practice were presented on Wednesday January 30, 2013 at 1:00 pm EST. This webinar focused on interpreting the evidence in the following review: Baker, P., Francis, D., Soares, J., Weightman, A., Foster, C. Community wide interventions for increasing physical activity. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, 2011(4): Art. No.: CD008366. Maureen Dobbins, Scientific Director of Health Evidence, lead the webinar, which included interactive discussion with Philip Baker, the first author of this review.
Citation preview
Welcome! This webinar has been made possible with support from the
Canadian Institutes of Health Research
Community-wide Interventions for
Increasing Physical Activity:
What’s the evidence? You will be placed on hold until the webinar begins.
The webinar will begin shortly, please remain on the line.
What’s the evidence? Baker, P.R.A., Francis, D.P., Soares, J.,
Weightman, A.L. & Foster, C. (2011). Community wide interventions for increasing physical activity. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Issue 4. Art. No.:CD008366. DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD008366.pub2.
http://www.health-evidence.ca/articles/show/21588
Housekeeping Use Q&A to post comments/questions
during the webinar ‘Send’ questions to All
(not privately to ‘Host’)
Connection issues Recommend using a wired Internet
connection (vs. wireless), to help prevent connection challenges
WebEx 24/7 help line: 1-866-229-3239
Q&A
Participant Side Panel in WebEx
Welcome! This webinar has been made possible with support from the
Canadian Institutes of Health Research
Community-wide Interventions for
Increasing Physical Activity:
What’s the evidence?
Maureen Dobbins Scientific Director Tel: 905 525-9140 ext 22481 E-mail: dobbinsm@mcmaster.ca
Kara DeCorby Managing Director
Lori Greco Knowledge Broker
Lyndsey McRae Research Assistant
Robyn Traynor Research Coordinator
The Health Evidence Team
Heather Husson Project Manager
Jennifer Yost Guest Presenter
What is www.health-evidence.ca?
Evidence
Decision Making
inform
Why use www.health-evidence.ca?
1. Saves you time
2. Relevant & current evidence
3. Transparent process
4. Supports for EIDM available
5. Easy to use
Knowledge Translation
Supplement Project
CIHR-funded KTB-112487
Philip Baker
Professor of Epidemiology, School of Public Health and Social Work, Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane Australia
Review Baker, P.R.A., Francis, D.P., Soares, J., Weightman, A.L.
& Foster, C. (2011). Community wide interventions for increasing physical activity. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Issue 4. Art. No.:CD008366. DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD008366.pub2.
Authors and affiliations Professor Dr Philip Baker – QUT Daniel Francis – Queensland Health /
QUT Prof Alison Weightman – Cardiff
University, Wales Dr Charlie Foster – Oxford University,
UK Dr Jesus Soares – CDC, USA
Questions?
Summary Statement: Baker(2011) P General population, i.e. communities. I Community wide, multi-strategic interventions
with at least two strategies aimed at promoting physical activity.
C Usual practice. O Population levels of physical activity. Quality Rating: 9 (strong)
Included intervention s: Multi-strategic interventions that aim to reach the whole
community, which must have included at least 2 of a possible 6 components:
social marketing; other communication strategies; individual counselling by health practitioners; partnerships with government or non-government
groups; working in specific settings; and environmental change strategies.
Overall Considerations
Insufficient evidence, most included studies at high risk of bias. Serious issues in the design affecting their trustworthiness
There may be efficacious approaches
Different interventions seemed to reach different segments of the population.
Some studies showed positive effect, others decreased or no effect
High intensity interventions did not necessary result in more effective interventions
General Implications Public health should promote/support/implement: Can not assume combining interventions will yield a
measurable health outcome.
Should not group label “evidence-based”.
There is a need for more robust studies to investigate community wide interventions. Need to measure PA accurately, continuous measures best.
New studies should be rigorously designed and analysed and should include process evaluations
Consider individual components e.g. School-based
General implications Robust, continuous measurement
better Might be promise in the environmental
strategies long term perspective Reaching whole community difficult
Public health should consider that…
Interpretation limited by the included studies
many at high risk of bias
Selection bias- e.g. “purposely” different communities, “head start”
Detection –poor outcome measurement, low response rate
Reporting bias – outcomes measured – but missing
What’s the evidence? Outcomes reported in the review
Dichotomous outcomes % Physical activity % Not sedentary % Leisure time physical activity
Continuous outcomes Time physically active Walking METs (energy expenditure)
What the review found There was much variation in interventions, population and
outcomes. The results of the studies themselves were inconsistent,
making it especially difficult to identify the key, reliable findings.
Few studies reported a substantial or sustained increase in
physical activity There was no evidence that more intense interventions
worked better then others.
Countries of origin
USA 8 Demark 1
China 4 Finland 1
Australia 2 France 1
Netherlands 2 Iran 1
Norway 2 Pakistan 1
Canada 1
Belgium 1
What the review found
What the review found included strategies
Building partnership (22 studies) Some form of counselling (18) Mass media (15) Other communication (18) Specific settings (11) Environmental change strategies (10)
Dichotomous outcomes – Physical activity
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
Wendel-Vos2009
Reger-Nash2005
Brown 2006 Lupton 2003 Sarrafzadegan2009
Kloek 2006 NSW Health2002
Jiang 2008
Favo
urs
co
ntr
ol
F
avo
urs
inte
rve
nti
on
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1
1.1
1.2
1.3
1.4
Nishtar 2007 Kumpusalo 1996 Luepker 1994a Luepker 1994b
Favo
urs
cont
rol
F
avou
rs in
terv
enti
onDichotomous outcomes – Physical activity during leisure time
0
1
2
3
Jenum 2006 Nafziger 2001 Osler 1993 GoodmanFavo
urs
inte
rven
tion
F
avou
rs c
ontr
olDichotomous outcomes – Sedentary or physically inactive
Continuous outcomes 7 included studies 3 showing some evidence (DeCocker
2007 (women), Simon 2008, Wendel-Vos 2009 Measured a against background
decreasing PA levels Continuous measures more useful
Continuous measures – Leisure time spent in PA
Study Measure (labelled)
Subgroups Post-mean difference
Adjusted mean difference
Adjusted % change relative to the control mean
Wendel-Vos 2009
Leisure time PA (hours/wk)
Men -0.2 -0.4 -2.06
Women -0.7 2.2 14.01 (P<0.5)
DeCocker 2008 Leisure time PA (min/week)
Leisure time PA
0 32 25.60 (P<0.05)
Simon 2008 Supervised leisure time PA (hours/week)
Children only measured
0.9 1.1 43.14 (P<0.0001)
Continuous outcomes walking
Study Measure (labelled)
Sub-groups Post mean difference
Adjusted mean difference
Adjusted % change relative to the control mean
Wendel-Vos 2009
Walking (hours/week)
Men 1.8 1.1 15.94 NS
Women 1.8 2.0 29.41 NS
DeCocker 2007
Walking (min/week)
Walking 34 47 17.34 (P<0.05)
Brownson 2005
Walking (mean min/week)
N/A -0.8 5.2 4.75 NS
Brownson 2004
7 day total walking (mean
N/A -5.3 -1.4 -1.38 NS
Continuous outcomes – Energy expenditure METs
Study Measure (labelled)
Post mean difference
Adjusted mean difference
Adjusted % change relative to the control mean
Sarrafzegan 2009
Total daily PA (MET –m/week +SD)
32 46 9.09 (P<0.05)
Leisure time PA (MET- m/week)
14 13 12.26 (P<0.01)
Kloek 2006 METs/week 81 -241 -3.54 (P=0.95)
Intensity of the Intervention 9 high intensity 10 medium intensity 6 low intensity
Interventions by Gu 2006, Jiang 2008,
and Zhang 2003 reached every individual in their target communities
High intensity studies Of the 9 studies assessed of high intensity 5 of these reported some improved PA
outcomes 3 of these found no effects Some high intensity interventions not
appropriate for western settings
Environmental – possible? Brown -2006 (wide range) women Brownson 2004 (walking trails) De Cocker 2007 (signage) Eaton 1999 (trails, paths) Goodman 1995 (walking trails) Jenum 2006 (approaches) maybe Leupker 1994 (change) NSW Health 2002 (parks) maybe O’Loughlin 1999 (minimal) Simon 2008 (various)
General Implications Review is a foundation of relevant evidence
Reviews of specific components
Environmental change strategies and settings based approaches may provide a promising direction for future interventions
Incorporation of strong evaluation designs
Take home messages
Many of the included studies had significant methodological issues
The effects reported from the 25 studies included in the review were inconsistent across both studies and measurements.
This review has established a foundation of the relevant evidence
Improved evaluation design is required to better understand what strategies work for whom, what components are essential and what measures are reliable
Environmental change strategies and/or settings based approach may be the place to start for further research
Questions?
Posting Board For a copy of the presentation please visit our
posting board: http://forum.health-evidence.ca/
Login with your health-evidence username and password or register if you aren’t a member yet.
Canadian Institutes of Health Research Institute of Population and Public Health
Funding Opportunities
• Population Health Intervention Research to Promote Health and Health Equity
• Knowledge Translation Awards • Institute Community Support Grants and
Awards • CIHR’s Open Operating Grants Program
37
Population Health Intervention Research Example
38
Evaluation of traffic safety interventions in B.C. Jeffrey Brubacher, et. al (UBC)
Looking at whether number of vehicle crashes changed after changes to the province’s Motor Vehicle Act. Findings will influence B.C.’s road safety strategy and will be of interest to traffic safety lawmakers from other Canadian provinces and territories.
• Visit ResearchNet for current CIHR
funding opportunities: http://www.researchnet-recherchenet.ca/
• For further information please contact us ipph-ispp@uottawa.ca
39
Recommended