Determining the Impact of Walk Kansas: Applying a Team-Building Approach to Community Physical Activity Promotion
Research and practice partnerships have the potential to enhance the translation of research findings into practice.
This paper describes such a partnership in the development of Walk Kansas (WK) and highlights individual and organizational level outcomes.
Phase 1 examined: (a) the reach of WK, (b) physical activity changes, and (c) maintenance of physical activity changes 6 months after the program was completed. Phase 2 explored WK adoption and sustainability over 5 years.
WK attracted a large number of participants who were more likely to be female, more active, and older than the adult population within the counties where they resided. Inactive or insufficiently active participants at baseline experienced significant increases in both moderate (p < 0.001) and vigorous (p < 0.001) physical activity. A random selection of participants who were assessed 6 months post-program did not demonstrate a significant decrease in moderate or vigorous activity between program completion and 6-month follow-up. The number of counties adopting the program increased across years, peaking at 97 in 2006 and demonstrated the sustainability of the WK over 5 years.
WK is effective, has a broad reach, and enables participants to maintain increased activity. It also shows promise for broad adoption and sustainability.
KeywordsReach Effectiveness Implementation Adoption Sustainability Intervention
- 1.US Department of Health and Human Services. Physical Activity Fundamental to Preventing Disease. Washington, DC: Office of the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation; 2002.Google Scholar
- 2.US Department of Health and Human Services. Physical Activity and Health: A Report of the Surgeon General. Pittsburgh, PA: Superintendent of Documents; 1996.Google Scholar
- 3.US Department of Health and Human Services. Promoting better health for young people through physical activity and sports: A report to the President from the Secretary of Health and Human Services and the Secretary of Education. 2000.Google Scholar
- 4.Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, US Department of Health and Human Services. Physical Activity and Older Americans: Benefits and Strategies. CDC 2002.Google Scholar
- 7.Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Early release of selected estimates based on data from the 2003 National Health Interview Survey. National Health Interview Survey 2004; pp. 34–36. Available from: URL: http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nhis.
- 11.Estabrooks P, Dzewaltowski DA, Glasgow RE, Klesges LM. School-based health promotion: Issues related to translating research into practice. J Sch Health. 2003; 7321: 28.Google Scholar
- 17.Viswanathan M, Ammerman A, Eng E, Gartlehner G, Lohr KN, Griffith D, Rhodes S, Samuel-Hodge C, Maty S, Lux L, Webb LA, Sutton SF, Swinson T, Jackman A, Whitener L. Community-Based Participatory Research: A Summary of the Evidence. Rockville, MD: Agency for Healthcare Research & Quality; 2004.Google Scholar
- 19.Rogers EM. Diffusion of Innovations. 5th ed. New York, NY: Free Press; 2003.Google Scholar
- 20.United States Congress. Smith-Lever Act of May 8, 1914. Smith-Lever Act 1914; Chapter 78.Google Scholar
- 21.Kansas State University Agricultural Experiment Station and Cooperative Extension Service. Handbook for County Extension Councils and District Governing Bodies. 1998.Google Scholar
- 26.Green LW. Participatory Research in Health Promotion. British Columbia: Royal Society of Canada; 1995.Google Scholar
- 27.Carron AV, Spink KS. Team building in an exercise setting. Sport Psychol. 1993; 7: 8–18.Google Scholar
- 31.Spink KS, Carron AV. The effects of team building on the adherence patterns of female exercise participants. J Sport Exerc Psychol. 1993; 15: 39–49.Google Scholar
- 32.Estabrooks PA, Fox EH, Doerksen SE, Bradshaw MH, King AC. Participatory research to promote physical activity at congregate meal sites. J Aging Phys Act. 2004; 132: 121–144.Google Scholar
- 38.Macera CA, Pratt C. Public health surveillance of physical activity. Res Q Exerc Sport. 2000; 712: 97–103.Google Scholar
- 39.Macera CA, Ham SA, Jones DA, Kimsey CD, Ainsworth BE, Neff LJ. Limitations on the use of a single screening question to measure sedentary behavior. Am J Public Health. 2001; 91: 2012–2021.Google Scholar
- 40.Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. 2001 State Summary Data Kansas: Physical Activity. United States Department of Health and Human Services 2004; Available from: URL: http://apps.nccd.cdc.gov/PASurveillance/StateSumResultV.asp?Year=2001&State = 19
- 41.Carron AV, Hausenblas HA, Eys MA. Group Dynamics in Sport. 3rd ed. Morgantown, WV: Fitness Information Technology, Inc; 2005.Google Scholar