Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Peer-delivered physical activity interventions: an overlooked opportunity for physical activity promotion

  • Systematic Review
  • Published:
Translational Behavioral Medicine

Abstract

The purpose of this systematic review was to catalogue and synthesize published studies that have examined the effects of peer-delivered physical activity interventions on physical activity behavior. Ten published studies were identified that met the inclusion criteria. The following information was extracted from each study: study design and duration; characteristics of the sample, peers, and interventions; and physical activity outcomes. In all articles reporting within-groups analyses, peer-delivered interventions led to increases in physical activity behavior. When compared to alternatives, peer-delivered interventions were just as effective as professionally delivered interventions and more effective than control conditions for increasing physical activity. Only three studies included measures of social cognitive variables, yielding some evidence that peers may enhance self-efficacy and self-determined forms of motivation. Based on these findings, interventionists are encouraged to include peer mentors in their intervention delivery models. Investigators are encouraged to pursue a more comprehensive understanding of factors that can explain and maximize the impact of peer-delivered activity interventions.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Albright A, Franz M, Hornsby G, et al. American College of Sports Medicine position stand: exercise and type 2 diabetes. Medicine & Science in Sport & Exercise. 2000;32(7):1345-1360.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Grundy SM, Blackburn G, Higgins M, Lauer R, Perri MG, Ryan D. Physical activity in the prevention and treatment of obesity and its comorbidities: evidence report of independent panel to assess the role of physical activity in the treatment of obesity and its comorbidities. Medicine & Science in Sport & Exercise. 1999;31(11):1493-1500.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Hamilton MT, Healy GN, Dunstan DW, Zderic TW, Owen N. Too little exercise and too much sitting: inactivity physiology and the need for new recommendations on sedentary behaviour. Current Cardiovascular Reports. 2008;2:292-298.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Allison DB, Fontaine KR, Manson JE, Stevens J, VanItallie TB. Annual deaths attributed to obesity in the United States. JAMA : The Journal of the American Medical Association. 1999;282(16):1530-1538.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Lee IM, Skerrett PJ. Physical activity and all-cause mortality: what is the dose–response relation? Medicine & Science in Sport & Exercise. 2001;33(6):S459-S471. S493–494.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Manson JE, Hu FB, Rich-Edwards JW, et al. A prospective study of walking as compared with vigorous exercise in the prevention of coronary heart disease in women. The New England Journal of Medicine. 1999;341(9):650-658.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Lee IM. Physical activity and cancer prevention: data from epidemiologic studies. Medicine & Science in Sport & Exercise. 2003;35(11):1823-1827.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Chodzko-Zajko WJ, Proctor DN, Fiatarone Singh MA, et al. American College of Sports Medicine position stand: exercise and physical activity for older adults. Medicine & Science in Sport & Exercise. 2009;41:1510-1530.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Martin Ginis KA, Hicks AL. Considerations for the development of a physical activity guide for Canadians with physical disabilities. Canadian Journal of Public Health. 2007;98(Suppl 2):S135-S147.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Prevalence of regular physical activity among adults—United States, 2001 and 2005. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report. 2007;56(46):1209-1212.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Pleis JR, Lucas JW. Summary health statistics for U. S. adults: National Health Interview Survey. Vital and Health Statistics Series. 2009;10:1-159.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Barnes P. Physical activity among adults: United States, 2000 and 2005. Hyattsville: National Center for Health Statistics, US Department of Health and Human Services, CDC; 2007.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Martin Ginis KA, Arbour-Nicitopoulos KP, Latimer-Cheung AE, et al. Predictors of leisure time physical activity among people with spinal cord injury. Annals of Behavioral Medicine. 2012;44:104-118.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Swinburn BA, Walter LG, Arrol B, Tilyard MW, Russel DG. The green prescription study: a randomized controlled trial of written exercise advice provided by general practitioners. American Journal of Public Health. 1998;88:288-291.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Bolognesi M, Nigg CR, Massarini M, Lippke S. Reducing obesity indicators through brief physical activity counseling (PACE) in Italian primary care settings. Annals of Behavioral Medicine. 2006;31:179-185.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Dellinger SF, Aung N, Campos JA, et al. Formulating Hawaii's public health education needs: input from the health community. Hawaii Medical Journal. 2007;66:45-47.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Juraschek SP, Zhang X, Ranganathan V, Lin VW. United States registered nurse workforce report card and shortage forecast. American Journal of Medical Quality. 2012;27:241-249.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Marcus BH, Ciccolo JT, Sciamanna CN. Using electronic/computer interventions to promote physical activity. British Journal of Sports Medicine. 2009;43:102-105.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Faulkner G, Gorczynski P, Arbour K, Letts L, Wolfe DL, Martin Ginis KA. Messengers and methods of disseminating health information among individuals with spinal cord injury: a scoping review. In: Berkovsky TC, ed. Handbook of spinal cord injuries: types, treatments and prognosis. Hauppauge: Nova; 2010:349-374.

    Google Scholar 

  20. Letts L, Martin Ginis KA, Faulkner G, Colquhoun H, Levac D, Gorczynski P. Preferred methods and messengers for delivering physical activity information to people with spinal cord injury: a focus group study. Rehabilitation Psychology. 2011;56:128-137.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Hernandez B, Hayes E, Balcazar F, Keys C. Responding to the needs of the underserved: a peer-mentor approach. SCI Psychosocial Process. 2001;14:142-149.

    Google Scholar 

  22. Veith EM, Sherman JE, Pellino TA, Yasui NY. Qualitative analysis of the peer-mentoring relationship among individuals with spinal cord injury. Rehabilitation Psychology. 2006;51(4):289-298.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Borkman T. Experiential knowledge: a new concept for the analysis of self-help groups. Social Science Review. 1976;50:445-455.

    Google Scholar 

  24. Blosser J, DePompei R. Preparing educational professionals for meeting the needs of students with traumatic brain injuries. The Journal of Head Trauma Rehabilitation. 1991;6:73-82.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Colella TJF, King KM. An under-recognized resource in cardiac recovery. European Journal of Cardiovascular Nursing. 2004;3:211-217.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Dennis CL. Peer support within a health care context: a concept analysis. International Journal of Nursing Studies. 2003;40:321-332.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Standal ØF, Jespersen E. Peers as resources for learning: a situated learning approach to adapted physical activity rehabilitation. Adapted Physical Activity Quarterly. 2008;25:208-227.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Long JA, Jahnle EC, Richardson DM, Loewenstein G, Volpp KG. Peer mentoring and financial incentives to improve glucose control in African American veterans: a randomized trial. Annals of Internal Medicine. 2012;156(6):416-424.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Webel AR, Okonsky J, Trompeta J, Holzemer WL. A systematic review of the effectiveness of peer-based interventions on health-related behaviors in adults. American Journal of Public Health. 2010;100(2):247-253.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Kramish Campbell M, James A, Hudson MA, et al. Improving multiple behaviors for colorectal cancer prevention among African American church members. Health Psychology. 2004;23(5):492-502.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Lamb SE, Bartlett HP, Ashley A, Bird W. Can lay-led walking programmes increase physical activity in middle aged adults? A randomised controlled trial. Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health. 2002;56(4):246-252.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Carroll DL, Rankin SH. Comparing interventions in older unpartnered adults after myocardial infarction. European Journal of Cardiovascular Nursing. 2006;5(1):83-89.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Lorig KR, Ritter PL, Gonzalez VM. Hispanic chronic disease self-management: a randomized community-based outcome trial. Nursing Research. 2003;52(6):361-369.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Fu D, Fu H, McGowan P, et al. Implementation and quantitative evaluation of chronic disease self-management programme in Shanghai, China: randomized controlled trial. Bulletin of the World Health Organization. 2003;81:174-182.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Bandura A. Social foundations of thought and action: a social cognitive theory. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall; 1986.

    Google Scholar 

  36. McCullagh P, Weiss MR. Modeling: considerations for motor skill performance and psychological responses. In: Singer RN, Hausenblaus HA, Janelle CM, eds. Handbook of sport psychology. 2nd ed. New York: Wiley; 2001:205-238.

    Google Scholar 

  37. Schunk DH. Peer models and children's behavioral change. Review of Educational Research. 1987;57:149-174.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Bandura A. Self-efficacy: the exercise of control. New York: Freeman; 1997.

    Google Scholar 

  39. Deci EL, Ryan RM. Intrinsic motivation and self-determination in human behavior. New York: Plenum; 1985.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  40. Deci EL, Ryan RM. The “what” and “why” of goal pursuits: human needs and the self-determination of behavior. Psychological Inquiry. 2000;11:227-268.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Harter S. Effectance motivation reconsidered: toward a development model. Human Development. 1978;21:34-64.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Harter S. A model of intrinsic mastery motivation in children: individual differences and developmental change. In: Collins WA, ed. Minnesota symposium on child psychology, vol. 14. Hillsdale: Erlbaum; 1981:215-255.

    Google Scholar 

  43. Kahn EB, Ramsey LT, Brownson RC, et al. The effectiveness of interventions to increase physical activity: a systematic review. American Journal of Preventive Medicine. 2002;22(Suppl 4):73-107.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Tudor-Locke C, Lauzon N, Myers AM, et al. Effectiveness of the first step program delivered by professionals versus peers. Journal of Physical Activity and Health. 2009;6:456-462.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. Castro CM, Pruitt LA, Buman MP, King AC. Physical activity program delivery by professionals versus volunteers: the TEAM randomized trial. Health Psychology. 2011;30(3):285-294.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. Buman MP, Giacobbi PRJ, Dzierzewski JM, et al. Peer volunteers improve long-term maintenance of physical activity with older adults: a randomized controlled trial. Journal of Physical Activity & Health. 2011;8(Suppl 2):S257-S266.

    Google Scholar 

  47. Dorgo S, King GA, Bader JO, Limon JS. Comparing the effectiveness of peer mentoring and student mentoring in a 35-week fitness program for older adults. Archives of Gerontology and Geriatrics. 2011;52:344-349.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  48. Dorgo S, King GA, Brickey GD. The application of peer mentoring to improve fitness in older adults. Journal of Aging and Physical Activity. 2009;17:344-361.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  49. Dorgo S, Robinson KM, Bader JO. The effectiveness of a peer-mentored older adult fitness program on perceived physical, mental, and social function. Journal of the American Academy of Nurse Practitioners. 2009;21(2):116-122.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  50. Parent N, Fortin F. A randomized, controlled trial of vicarious experience through peer support for male first-time cardiac surgery patients: impact on anxiety, self-efficacy expectation, and self-reported activity. Heart & Lung. 2000;29(6):389-400.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  51. Bazzano AT, Zeldin AS, Shihady IR, et al. The Healthy Lifestyle Change Program: a pilot of a community-based health promotion intervention for adults with developmental disabilities. American Journal of Preventive Medicine. 2009;37(6S1):S201-S208.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  52. Thomas AB, Ward E. Peer power: how dare county, North Carolina, is addressing chronic disease through innovative programming. Journal of Publ Health Management Practice. 2006;12(5):462-467.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  53. Lieberman LJ, Dunn JM, van der Mars H, McCubbin J. Peer tutors' effects on activity levels of deaf students in inclusive elementary physical education. Adapted Physical Activity Quarterly. 2000;17:20-39.

    Google Scholar 

  54. Baranowski T, Anderson C, Carmack C. Mediating variable framework in physical activity interventions. How are we doing? How might we do better? American Journal of Preventive Medicine. 1998;15(4):266-297.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  55. Smith AL, McDonough MH, Peers . In: Smith AL, Biddle SJH, eds. Youth physical activity and sedentary behavior. Champaign: Human Kinetics. 2008; 295–320.

  56. Chatzisarantis N, Hagger M. Effects of an intervention based on self-determination theory on self-reported leisure-time physical activity participation. Psychology and Health. 2009;24(1):29-48.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

We gratefully acknowledge Adrienne Sinden for her assistance with the preparation of this manuscript.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Kinesiology, McMaster University, 1280 Main Street West, Ivor Wynne Centre E212, Hamilton, ON, L8S 4K1, Canada

    Kathleen A Martin Ginis

  2. Department of Public Health Sciences, John A. Burns School of Medicine, University of Hawaii at Manoa, Honolulu, HI, USA

    Claudio R Nigg PhD

  3. Department of Kinesiology, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI, USA

    Alan L Smith PhD

Authors
  1. Kathleen A Martin Ginis
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Claudio R Nigg PhD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Alan L Smith PhD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Kathleen A Martin Ginis.

Additional information

Implications

Practice:

Peer mentors are viable physical activity intervention delivery agents who can provide various types of support including assistance with problem solving, opportunities for information sharing, motivation, encouragement, and realistic observation and feedback.

Policy:

When developing staffing plans, physical activity prescription is typically the responsibility of professionals; however, the implementation of those prescriptions can be administered by peers, an approach that may ultimately enhance the reach of physical activity interventions.

Research:

Further theory-driven research is needed to determine the mechanisms by which peers exert influence over physical activity behavior and to understand the factors that can maximize the impact of peer-delivered interventions.

About this article

Cite this article

Ginis, K.A.M., Nigg, C.R. & Smith, A.L. Peer-delivered physical activity interventions: an overlooked opportunity for physical activity promotion. Behav. Med. Pract. Policy Res. 3, 434–443 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s13142-013-0215-2

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s13142-013-0215-2

Keywords

Search

Navigation