76

Active Eagleby Implementation Project - Developing communities where people feel valued, safe and proudK. Cocks1*1Gold Coast Population Health Unit

Eagleby is a small community situated on the boarder of Gold Coast City Council and Logan City Council and is one of the areas of greatest disadvantage in Queensland, with 87 % of the population falling within the quintile of most socioeconomic disadvantage. The purpose of the Active Eagleby Implementation Project was to strengthen the capacity of individual Eagleby residents to be more active, by addressing the modifiable individual, social and environmental determinants of inactivity as recommended in the Active Eagleby Action Plan. The project aimed to increase Eagleby resident physical activity levels by 5% from baseline by developing and implementing specific sub-projects and programs targeting various settings and popualtion groups. To measure the impact on physical activity levels, the Active Australia Survey was implemented to 300 households in 2003 and recently in 2007. To measure capacity a Capacity Index Tool was developed by modifying the Community Capacity Index and the Southern Area Population Health Capacity Building Package and administered with key individuals and/or organisations. The VicHealth Partnership Analysis Tool (PAT) was delivered to the Active Eagleby Reference Group to measure the success of the partnership. The results show that Eagleby residents’ physical activity levels remained static or declined between 2003 and 2007, except for the age group 45 – 49years. Overall barriers to physical activity decreased over the project period and survey participants noticed improvements in supportive environment hard and soft infrastructure. The results from the CCI and PAT show that the project built capacity within the community within several domains and reflected the complex array of partnerships formed throughout the project. The processes, results and learnings from this project will be discussed.

The Healthier Lifestyle ProgramW. Dolejs1, M. Zucco1*, K. Grimmer-Somers2

1Central Northern Adelaide Health Service2University of South Australia

The Healthier Lifestyle Program aimed to develop a systematic approach to addressing pre-diabetes lifestyle risk factors and targeted individuals who were considered by health professionals, or themselves, to be at-risk of developing Type 2 diabetes. Three new positions titled Lifestyle Coordinators were appointed for a six month pilot program to work with patients to identify their change goals and support them to improve their level of physical activity and nutrition. The evaluation aimed to assess the systems in place to support the role of the Lifestyle Coordinators ongoing, organisational and community supports required for continuing the program, barriers and enablers for patients to change behaviours within the context of the program, and stakeholder perspectives on the program and their participation in it. Interview data from patients indicated that the mechanism of referral into the program was an essential element of their participation, and potentially predicted patients at stages of readiness to change. Patients who made their own decision to attend the program appeared to have a greater readiness to adopt change and take up new information and ideas. Referrals in which the GP was an integral motivating element were generally successful, as patients believed that their GP understood about the program and what it had to offer them. Using a pedometer was one of the most successful strategies to increase exercise. It provided immediate, objective data that many patients had never considered could be available to them, and it assisted them to integrate an exercise target into their daily routine.

Multi-purpose recreation facilities as a physical activity setting: a survey of facility usersA. Donaldson1*, C. Finch1, M. Mahoney2 & L. Otago1

1University Of Ballarat2(formerly) Deakin University

Multi-purpose recreation facilities (MPRF) are a valuable community resource and a popular setting for physical activity (PA) participation. However, little is known about who uses them or why. This study describes the users of four MPRFs in Victoria, Australia. A Facility Users Questionnaire was completed by 729 MPRF users (75% response rate) to collect information about their: demographic characteristics; PA participation; reasons for attending; and reasons for selecting the specific facility. Data was analysed by descriptive and comparative statistics. Most commonly, users were: female (63%); <40 years old (62%); had a university degree (46%); were either professionals (30%), involved in home-duties (18%), managers (11%), or students (10%) and attended the MPRF 2–4 times/week (57%) for 30–60 minutes/visit (53%) The most frequently reported reasons for attending the MPRFs were improving and maintaining fitness/health (66%), enjoyment (15%), weight loss (11%), and rehabilitation (11%). The most frequently reported reason for selecting a particular facility was its proximity to home (58%), the type/range of programs offered (36%) and the range of equipment available (25%). The findings of this study indicate that there are significant differences between different types of MPRF users (female vs. male; older vs. younger; metropolitan vs. regional/rural). These findings have important implications for future PA promotion initiatives linked with MPRF service provision. It is more likely that PA promoters and MPRF providers will successfully meet community needs and recruit and retain facility users if they have a better understanding of these similarities and differences.

Factors affecting the development of health promoting sport clubsR. Eime1*, W. Payne1, J. Harvey1 & S. Maher2

1University Of Ballarat2VicHealth

The Victorian Health Promotion Foundation (VicHealth) funds State Sporting Associations (SSAs) to develop Healthy and Welcoming (club) Environments (HWE). The program is used as a mechanism to increase participation in club sport. This study explored factors affecting the HWE program. The focus areas are: welcoming and inclusive environments, sports injury prevention, ‘smokefree’ environments, responsible serving of alcohol, sun protection and healthy eating. Methods involved focus group discussion with 15 SSA representatives and in-depth analysis of two programs, involving semi-structured interviews with SSA program coordinator and club representatives (n=7 program A, n=12 program B). Discussion with SSAs included: program development, structure and implementation; policy or practice priorities; VicHealth focus areas; and links between programs and membership. The in-depth analysis included exploring the issues raised in the focus groups, from the perspectives of both SSA and clubs. It was found that some SSAs implemented the program in stages, and others as an all-in-one package. Commonly reported facilitators were: identifying key club persons; effective communication; understanding club/volunteer capacity, current practices and priorities; incorporating club suggestions; identifying needs; and offering incentives. Effective programs focused on promotion with best practice examples rather than dictating to clubs. Commonly barriers were associated with club cultures and a lack of understanding. Clubs believed the program was sustainable and would assist in increasing membership. Other learnings included the importance of understanding the time required to develop programs, and the need for a long-term goal. It is recommended that SSAs incorporate the program into a broader club development framework.

209

210

211

212