February 21, 2007 San Diego, California Defining a Physical Activity Policy and Environmental Research Agenda: Obtaining the Perspectives of Practitioners and Researchers
February 21, 2007 San Diego, California Defining a Physical Activity Policy and Environmental Research Agenda: Obtaining the Perspectives of Practitioners.
Dec 28, 2015
Welcome message from author
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
February 21, 2007
San Diego, California
Defining a Physical Activity Policy and Environmental Research Agenda: Obtaining the Perspectives of Practitioners and Researchers
Today’s AgendaTime Topic
1:00 – 1:15 Welcome & Introductions
1:15 – 2:15 Overview of Concept Mapping and the Findings
2:15 – 3:30 Small Groups
3:30 – 3:45 Break
3:45 – 4:45 Develop Priorities & Action Steps and Discuss Dissemination
4:45 – 5:00 Closing Comments
Thank you to our funders & partners!
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (through the Physical Activity Policy and Research Network)
RWJF via Active Living Research National Society of Physical Activity Practitioners in
Public Health National Association of Chronic Disease Directors Directors of Health Promotion and Education
Overall Project Objectives
The objectives of this project are to:
Obtain input from practitioners and researchers on an agenda for environmental and policy research;
Prioritize this input into a concise research agenda; and
Meet in person to refine the agenda and develop action steps.
Objectives for Today
The objectives for today are to: Review the concept mapping findings Develop priorities and action steps based on
findings Begin to discuss dissemination plans
Rationale & Unique Contributions of this Project
Evidence-based approaches make sense Evidence base for many environmental & policy
interventions is sparse We sought to utilize
Systematic process Inputs from hundreds of individuals who otherwise would
not be included (users help set agenda) Rigorous method of reducing information to a meaningful
product Springboard for future research and improved
practice in PA promotion
Why Concept Mapping? Solicit and organize input from many perspectives
Builds consensus among disparate groups
Builds knowledge and creates a unique framework that is yours
Provide details and an organized high level shared conceptual framework of actions
Provide basis for prioritizing actions
The Planning Group Defines the Issue To Be Addressed
“One research topic that will best inform policy or environmental approaches to physical activity promotion is...”
“One research topic that will best inform policy or environmental approaches to physical activity promotion is...”
Develop a focus
Identify the Key Informants and Knowledge Leaders
“One research topic that will best inform policy or environmental approaches to physical activity promotion is...”
600 Invited to Brainstorm238 Brainstormed
600 Invited to Rate107 Rated
25 Invited to Sort20 Sorted
Identify the participants
Develop a focus
Elicit Knowledge and Opinion
109
600
to assess the least expensive way to re-engineer walking back into neighborhoods
to determine the causality between environment, physical activity behavior and policies
to identify effective planning and implementation strategies for creating policy changes in physical activity
to determine whether mixed-use development actually increases walking and biking
to identify how changes to the built environment support physical activity in low-income neighborhoods
to understand the economic benefits to developers of adopting building and zoning codes that promote physical activity
to identify the tangible economic benefits for local/state governments from policies that promote physical activity
identify what physical changes are most likely to increase the number of children bicycling or walking to and from school
Generate Ideas
Identify the participants
Develop a focus
Organize Knowledge and Opinion
Structure Ideas
Generate Ideas
Identify the participants
Develop a focus
Work quickly and effectively under pressure
49
Organize the work when directions are
not specific.39
Decide how to manage multiple
tasks.20
Manage resources effectively.4
sort
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
3
Scan a multitu
de of inform
ation and
decide what is im
portant.1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
Manage time effectively
2
Manage resources effectively.
3
Scan a multitude of in
formation and
decide what is im
portant.
4
Decide how to manage multiple tasks.
5
Organize the work when directions are not specific.
1
Manage time effectively
Rating Sheet
rate
Build the Conceptual Framework
Compute Maps
Structure Ideas
Generate Ideas
Identify the participants
Develop a focus
1
2
3
4
5
6 7
8
9
10
11 12 13
14 15 16
17
18
19
20 21
22
23 24
25
26 27
28
29 30 31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42 43
44
45
46 47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56 57
58
59
60
61 62
63 64
65
66 67
68
69
70 71
72
73 74
75
76 77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105 106
107
108 109 110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
7
8
3
412
5
6
Turn Data Into Meaning
Interpret Maps
Compute Maps
Structure Ideas
Generate Ideas
Identify the participants
Develop a focus
1
2
3
4 5
6 7
8
9
10
11 12 13
14 15 16
17 18
19
20 21
22
23 24
25
26 27
28
29 30 31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42 43
44
45
46 47
48 49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56 57
58
59 60
61 62
63 64
65 66
67
68
69
70 71
72
73 74
75
76 77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105 106
107
108 109 110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
78
3
412
5
6
Turn Meaning Into Action
Interpret Maps
Compute Maps
Structure Ideas
Generate Ideas
Identify the participants
Develop a focus
Utilize MapsCreate Priority Action Areas
r = .51
Area 1 Area 2
4.22
3.47
4.4
3.56
Community & Consumer Views
Management
Information Services
Regionalization
Technology
Financing
Mission & Ideology
Technology
Community & Consumer Views
Information Services
Management
Regionalization
Financing
Mission & Ideology
The Project DetailsBrainstorming Session: Eliciting knowledge and opinion 600 researchers/practitioners were invited to participate.
238 brainstormed (42% researchers, 33% practitioners) Participants generated over 600 statements in response to the
prompt. The statement list was edited for relevance and
representativeness. Idea Synthesis resulted in a final set of 109 ideas to address
the topic.
The Project DetailsStructuring: Data collection to build the conceptual
framework (Sorting and Rating of Ideas): 600 participants were invited to rate the 109 ideas on relative
Importance 107 people (18%) contributed their input on the Importance rating.
58% researchers, 42% practitioners 88 people (15%) contributed their input on the Feasibility rating.
25 people were invited to organize the 109 ideas into conceptually similar piles or themes. 20 people (80%) participated in the conceptual sorting of the ideas.
76% researchers; 24% practitioners
Participant Characteristics (n =107)
Practitioners(42%)
Researchers(58%)
Promoting Health(72%)
Related Discipline (e.g., transportation, urban planning)
(28%)
Building the Concept Maps The Raw Materials:
109 Statements Sort Input from each participant Rate Input from each participant
The Tools: Aggregation of Sort Data Similarity Matrix Multidimensional Scaling Cluster Analysis
1
2 3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32 33
34
35
36 37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51 52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65 66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104 105
106
107
108 109
Each statement in relation to each other
1
2 3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32 33
34
35
36 37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51 52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65 66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104 105
106
107
108 109
Conceptually similar ideas are in close proximity
72 what low income young people and their parents cite as greatest barriers in urban areas
22 which policies will help children in low income communities
42 understand the role of selection bias
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32 33
34
35
36 37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51 52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65 66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104 105
106
107
108
109
Transportation & Recreational Physical Activity
City Planning & Design
Implementation of PoliciesMeasurement/Methodology
Community Design
Population Sub-Groups
Incentives & Benefits
Economic Evaluation
Schools & the Community
Comparisons: Importance & Feasibility
Please rate each statement on how important each research topic is relative to the other topics in developing a physical activity policy research agenda. 0 = Not Important 10 = Highly Important
Please rate each statement on how feasible each research topic is relative to the other topics to implement within the next 5 years. 0 = Not at all feasible 10 = Extremely feasible
Importance Rating
r = .86
Researchers Practitioners 6.93
5.82
7.21
5.74Transportation & Recreational Physical ActivityTransportation & Recreational Physical Activity Population Sub-Groups
Implementation of Policies
Incentives & Benefits
Measurement/Methodology
Measurement/Methodology
Schools
Implementation of Policies
Incentives & Benefits
Community Design
Population Sub-Groups
Schools
Community Design
Economic EvaluationEconomic Evaluation
City Planning and DesignCity Planning and Design
Feasibility Rating
r = 0.77
Researchers Practitioners
6.54
5.21
7.08
5.61City Planning and DesignCity Planning and Design
Incentives & Benefits
Economic Evaluation
Population Sub-Groups
Incentives & Benefits
Implementation of Policies
Implementation of Policies
Transportation & Recreational Physical Activity
Transportation & Recreational Physical Activity
Community Design
Community DesignEconomic Evaluation
Measurement/Methodology
Measurement/Methodology
Population Sub-Groups
SchoolsSchools
r = -0.59
Practitioners - Importance Researchers - Feasibility
7.21
5.74
6.54
5.21
City Planning and DesignTransportation & Recreational Physical Activity
Economic Evaluation
Population Sub-Groups
Incentives & Benefits
Incentives & Benefits
Implementation of Policies
Measurement/Methodology
Transportation & Recreational Physical Activity
Implementation of Policies
Community Design
Community Design
Measurement/Methodology
Schools & the Community
Population Sub-Groups
Economic Evaluation
Schools & the CommunityCity Planning and Design
Fe
asib
ility
Low
High
ImportanceLow High
Importance Mean for this cluster
Feasibility Mean for this cluster
Low ImportanceLow Feasibility
Identify what types of policy and environmental interventions to promote PA are most effective after a natural disaster (25)
High Importance
High FeasibilityAssess walking to school/safe routes to school on physical activity (16)
Low ImportanceHigh Feasibility
Assess the perception of time required to perform daily tasks by foot versus car (e.g. grocery shopping) (54)
High Importance
Low FeasibilityDetermine the causality between environment, physical activity and policies (13)
5466
1325
Go Zones: Importance & Feasibility
Transportation & Recreational Physical Activity
5.83.61 8.073.32
8.4
Importance
Feasi
bili
ty
6.21
1
3
9
23
25
53
54
69
71
7577
90
93
r = 0.29
#25 To identify what types of policy and environmental interventions to promote physical activity are most effective to implement after a natural disaster
#54 To assess the perception of time required for individuals to perform daily tasks by foot versus by car
#71 To study communities with successful programs that enable citizens to easily engage in physical activity
#23 To assess the least expensive way to re-engineer walking back into neighborhoods
City Planning and Design
7.043.61 8.07
3.32
8.4
Importance
Feasi
bili
ty
5.37
12
13
15
27
3145
68
86
r = -0.53
#15 To assess the types of policies that are most influential in affecting the built environment
#13 To determine the causality between environment, physical activity behavior and policies
#86 To determine the relationship of state Smart Growth policies to local implementation of innovative community design that incorporates more walking and biking
#31 To evaluate whether alternative zoning practices will support active living
Implementation of Policies
6.013.61 8.07
3.32
8.4
Importance
Feasi
bili
ty 6.18
17
24
3341
48
49
51
52
r = -0.06
#13 to understand the barriers to implementing policies that promote walkable communities
#17 to identify effective planning and implementation strategies for creating policy changes in physical activity
#24 to understand the barriers and opportunities for coordinated policy and planning agendas across agencies and entities
#51 to assess the impact of community involvement in early review of land use and transportation projects
Measurement/Methodology
6.043.61
8.07
3.32
8.4
Importance
Feasi
bili
ty
6.47
7
11
30
32
35
38
42 46
47
6063
65
66
80
91
102
103
r = 0.25
#47 to conduct assessments before and after an environmental change that is set to occur (natural experiments)
#91 to assess what incentives can be used to encourage communities to pass pedestrian/bicycle friendly ordinances
#7 to develop a brief audit tool for measuring the built environment and physical activity
#11 to compare various physical activity policy frameworks (national plans) and physical activity levels in each country
Community Design
6.353.61 8.07
3.32
8.4
Importance
Feasi
bili
ty 6.23
4
8
10 14
29
4056 58
5982
98
101
r = -0.51
# 58 to determine whether mixed-use development actually increases walking and biking
# 29 to assess the long term effect of community design on the incidence and prevalence of chronic diseases
#59 to assess the relationship between speed limits on roads and how these affect walking or biking
# 98 to address the role of affordable housing and public transit in healthy community design, especially in low-income minority populations
Population Sub-Groups
6.013.61 8.07
3.32
8.4
Importance
Feasi
bili
ty
6.27
22
28
43
44
50
55
64
70
72
79
8792
107 108109
r = 0.3
# 70 to assess how parental perceptions of safety affect physical activity levels in youth
# 108 to understand culturally appropriate policies and environmental approaches that can be used to encourage physical activity in different sub-groups
# 28 to determine how the built environment affects physical activity among people recovering from specific health conditions (e.g., cancer)
# 43 to understand which disabilities (e.g., physical, mental, sensory) limit access to places for physical activity
Incentives & Benefits
6.023.61 8.07
3.32
8.4
Importance
Feasi
bili
ty 6.012
61
6773
74
78
96100104
105
r = -0.1
# 67 to identify what resonates with
legislators/decision-makers to support policies
to increase physical education time and quality
# 2 to understand the economic benefits to
developers of adopting building and zoning codes that promote
physical activity
# 105 to assess the potential crime prevention benefits of changes to the built environment, such as the creation of trails and
parks
# 78 to examine the distribution and quality of
parks and recreation services across
socioeconomic levels
Economic Evaluation
6.643.61 8.07
3.32
8.4
Importance
Feasi
bili
ty 6.18
5
19
20
2636
37
81
84
8589
9597
99
r = -0.36
# 26 to identify which workplace policies result
in more employees meeting recommended
levels of physical activity
# 95 to identify the economic impact of trails on the value of adjacent
and nearby homes
# 20 to understand of how government dollars are
currently being spent and how this spending may impact physical activity
# 5 to identify the tangible economic
benefits for local/state governments from
policies that promote physical activity
Schools & the Community
6.353.61 8.07
3.32
8.4
Importance
Feasi
bili
ty
6.766
16
18
21
34
39
5762
7683 88
94
106
r =0.06# 16 to assess the effect of
daily physical education and/or physical activity on attendance and academic performance of students
in K-12 students
# 39 to assess the affordability of physical education everyday for
grades K-12
# 62 to identify the impact of increased requirements
for time and quality of physical education on
physical activity behavior of students in high-income
vs. low-income schools
# 34 to identify how to create sustainable and
cost-effective models for physical education
delivery in schools in low income neighborhoods
Small Groups1. Among the top priority issues identified by our
process, what are some tools/methods that would be useful in studying each issue? Health impact assessment Community audits
2. How might various disciplines and professions work together to address these research areas?
3. What actions need to be taken to move this research agenda forward as quickly as possible? By whom?
Large Group Discussion Brief reports back from each group (<5 minutes) Among the top priority issues identified by our
process, which is most relevant and timely for various funding agencies? RWJF CDC NIH
Next Steps & Dissemination
Related Documents
