Group Community Based Interventions (Week 8)

Question 1

using 4 points, explain what it is meant by a ‘true group’ as outlined by (Marrow., 1969)

Answer 1

1) 2 or more individuals
2) members have a similar fate
3) includes group processes
4) exhibit social identity/categorisation (a sense of us)

Question 2

what was the purpose of the following study:

‘group vs individual approach’ (Burke et al., 2006)

Answer 2

conduct a meta-analysis to empirically compare the relative merits of different contexts typically employed within the PA literature in 5 categories of outcomes:

1) adherence
2) social interaction
3) quality of life
4) physiological effectiveness
5) functional effectiveness

Question 3

what methods did (Burke et al., 2006) employ in their meta-analysis on ‘group vs individual approaches’ of PA interventions ?

Answer 3

• papers selected via computer search, manual search, and journal searches
• (n = 44) papers selected who compared more than 2 PA contexts
• looked at changes from baseline to post intervention in 4 areas:

1) true groups
2) standard exercise groups
3) home based with contact
4) home based without contact

Question 4

what 2 findings did (Burke et al., 2006) find in their study on ‘group vs individual approaches’ of PA interventions ?

Answer 4

1) consistent with priori hypothesis that true groups had significantly greater adherence, better social connections, improved quality of life, greatest physiological and functional improvements
2) supports findings from (Caron et al., 1996) that social support is required for effective exercise interventions

Question 5

what were 2 limitations to the study done by (Burke et al., 2006) on ‘group vs individual approaches’ of PA interventions ?

Answer 5

1) the majority of studies analysed participants that were > 50 years old (generalisability)
2) the majority of interventions lasted less than 12 months, so we cannot infer whether the effects of true groups will lead to LT behaviour change and adherence

Question 6

what is the take home message from the study done by (Burke et al., 2006) on ‘group vs individual approaches’ to PA interventions ?

Answer 6

• the more components of a group we bring together, the greater the accrued benefits become
• evolution ? being part of groups is what lead to human survival (desirable selection pressure)

Question 7

what was the purpose of the following study:

‘collaboration behaviours within interactive exercise groups’ (McEwan et al., 2020)

Answer 7

to gain a better understanding of collaboration behaviours within interactive exercise groups

Question 8

what was the method used by (McEwan et al., 2020) looking at ‘collaborative behaviours within interactive exercise groups’ ?

Answer 8

• data gathered from semi-structured interviews and analysed using thematic analysis in order to identify how individuals help each other to carry out exercise tasks
• N = 16 individuals who exercise in groups

Question 9

what were the main outcome measures to the study done by (McEwan et al., 2020) looking at ‘collaborative behaviours within interactive exercise groups’ ?

Answer 9

1) individuals reflections on their experiences with collaboration
2) identify behaviours that members demonstrate that help each other perform exercise tasks and achieve their exercise related goals

Question 10

what were the results to the study done by (McEwan et al., 2020) looking at ‘collaborative behaviours within interactive exercise groups’ ?

Answer 10

• group exercise has the following effects on individuals:

1) provides motivation to each other
2) provides intra-group coaching
3) provides personal support

Question 11

state 2 suggestions for future research on group exercise as suggested from the following study done by (McEwan et al., 2020) looking at ‘collaborative behaviours within interactive exercise groups’ ?

Answer 11

1) group dynamic research to look at ‘working together’ to attain outcome measures, such as improved performance
2) there is little research on the combination of teamwork and group-collaboration in group exercise settings (e.g. - cohesion in sport, but not exercise)

Question 12

state and explain 2 limitations from the following study by (McEwan et al., 2020) looking at ‘collaborative behaviours within interactive exercise groups’ ?

Answer 12

1) small sample size and findings may not generalise to all individuals and types of exercise groups
- future research could assess individuals with negative experiences with group exercise to help improve our understanding of collaboration
2) only interviewed individuals on a single occasion
- expectancy outcomes - knew what they were there for and probably answered ‘as expected’ towards positive experiences

Question 13

(McEwan et al., 2020) found 3 ways in which group mates help each other:

1) motivation building
2) intra-group coaching
3) personal support

explain how each of these help group mates

Answer 13

1) motivation building
- enhancing energy, determination, and drive to continue putting in effort
- e.g. - ‘encourages me to go beyond my RPE’

2) intra-group coaching
- performing exercise tasks correctly and safely
- e.g. - learning new tasks, spotting, feedback

3) personal support
- not focused on exercise but helps in a more indirect manner
- e.g. - barrier management, emotional support, accountability

Question 14

what was the original study aim of the ‘MAGI framework’ (Borek et al., 2018)

Answer 14

to develop an integrated framework of group features and interpersonal change processes operating by synthesising current knowledge about groups in the fields of group dynamics and behaviour change research

Question 15

what was the method behind developing the MAGI framework ? (Borek et al., 2018)

Answer 15

1) integration of data from literature reviews, qualitative interviews from GB-BCI’s and expert consultations
2) defined key terms surrounding the behaviour change construct
3) began with a priori framework developed from 5 overreaching categories outlined in a review by (Abraham et al., 2018)

Question 16

what were the 5 overreaching categories from the review done by (Abraham et al., 2018) which were used to develop the priori framework of MAGI (Borek et al., 2018) ?

Answer 16

1) group development process
2) dynamic group processes and properties
3) social change processes
4) personal change processes
5) group design and operating parameters

Question 17

how did (Borek et al., 2018) use taxonomy research to help in the development of the ‘MAGI Framework’ ?

Answer 17

1) selected and reviewed 6 widely used taxonomies of change techniques. examples include models from:
- (Abraham., 2008; Miche et al., 2011)

2) these taxonomies were used to identify group specific change techniques
3) these findings were compared to the priori framework, and modifications were made

Question 18

the ‘MAGI Framework’ was finalised and 6 distinct areas were integrated into the model. what are they ?

Answer 18

1) group intervention design
2) facilitation techniques
3) group dynamics and development
4) inter-personal change processes
5) intra-personal change processes and techniques
6) facilitator and participant characteristics and wider contextual influences

Question 19

explain what (Borek et al., 2018) mean by the following term - ‘group intervention design’

Answer 19

features of the GB-BCI design that might affect the functioning of the group and the delivery and receipt of the intended change process

Question 20

state 3 ‘group intervention design’ considerations outlined in the MAGI framework (Borek et al., 2018)

Answer 20

1) intended processes and outcomes of the group
2) purpose and benefit of using a group
3) group characteristics
4) participant selection and group characteristics (e.g. - any conditions?
5) facilitator selection (skills and qualifications)
6) intervention content
7) setting and venue
8) group set-up and the method of delivery

Question 21

what is the function of the ‘facilitation techniques and the facilitator’ in the MAGI framework (Burke et al., 2018)

Answer 21

1) throughout lifespan of group, different techniques needed
2) facilitator shapes the group interactions and activities
3) facilitators deliver intervention content
4) facilitate positive and manage negative group processes
5) techniques can change/adapt over time depending on the group dynamic

Question 22

state what it is meant by the key terms ‘group dynamics’ and ‘group development’

Answer 22

group dynamics: emerging and changeable processes and priorities used to describe how small groups work

group development: describes how groups change over time and are unique to every group

Question 23

state 3 examples of the effects of positive and negative group dynamics

Answer 23

• group cohesion
• collaboration
• common goals
• inhibition of change processes
• affect participation
• increase drop out rates

Question 24

what do group dynamics include ? (4 examples)

Answer 24

1) group climate
2) group engagement
3) communication patterns
4) group norms
5) group goals
5) group development

Question 25

state what it is meant by the key term - ‘inter-personal change processes’

Answer 25

change processes that are instigated and operate in social contexts and through social interactions and are influenced by group dynamics

Question 26

state 4 examples of ‘inter-personal group processes’

Answer 26

1) sharing experiences
2) exchanging information, advise, or ideas
3) social influence (beliefs, behaviours)
4) challenge each other
5) social support
6) social validation
7) group problem solving
8) feedback
9) social facilitation

Question 27

state what it is meant by the key term - ‘intra-personal change processes and targets’

Answer 27

operate within individuals and can be instigated without a group

can be effected by inter-personal processes, facilitators, and the social context of the group

Question 28

state 4 examples of intra-personal processes

Answer 28

1) self-present themselves in an intentional way
2) cognitive dissonance (may force you to change behaviour)
3) self-insight
4) changes in self-identity
5) developing and practicing new skills
6) self-monitoring

Question 29

state what it is meant by the key term - ‘facilitator, participant, and contextual characteristics’

Answer 29

these factors, external to the group, may influence and may be influenced by what happens in the group, and can change over time

Question 30

state 3 types of facilitator characteristics (MAGI)

Answer 30

1) personal and interpersonal skills
2) personal skills and expertise
3) demographic characteristics

Question 31

state 3 types of participant characteristics (MAGI)

Answer 31

1) personality, cognitions, and emotions
2) values and beliefs
3) personal agenda

Question 32

state 4 types of other contextual influences (MAGI)

Answer 32

1) support networks
2) social connectedness
3) external support and commitments
4) available resources

Question 33

what are the main outcome measures of the ‘MAGI Framework’ ?

Answer 33

1) psychological changes
2) PA health outcomes
3) psychological well-being

• each outcome is specific to each intervention

Question 34

state 3 implications of the ‘MAGI Framework’ as identified by (Burke et al., 2018)

Answer 34

1) social interaction should not be considered as a potentially ‘time saving’ method, but as a critically active ingredient in behaviour change interventions
2) highlights the importance of GB-BCI’s to develop interventions around the needs and characteristics of the group
3) provides a framework which highlights the important role of facilitators in behaviour change

Question 35

state 2 ideas for future research on GB-BCI’s from (Burke et al., 2018) from the ‘MAGI Framework’

Answer 35

1) systematic reviews that appraise construct evidence and synthesis qualitative studies on other group frameworks could aid in refinement of the MAGI framework
2) could be useful to map qualitative measures of group dynamics to further help individuals understand and use the MAGI framework as well as increase its use in future research

Question 36

state 2 strengths of the ‘MAGI Framework’

Answer 36

1) it bridges the gap between group dynamics and individual processes
2) used multiple methods to develop the model (interviews with experts, critically reviewing systematic reviews, qualitative data use…)

Question 37

state 3 limitations of the MAGI framework

Answer 37

1) heterogeneity in defining concepts in the reviewed studies used to develop the framework
2) does not provide recommendations on which change processes to use in different situations, it is just a ‘menu’
3) it was developed with a focus on weight loss interventions, so its generalisability to other contexts is limited until future studies are done with it

Question 38

why was the GMCB model developed ? (Brawley et al., 2014)

Answer 38

• the GBCB model was specifically designed to help support the transition of going from group-based exercise back to individual exercise
• based of 3 phases:

1) intensive phase
2) transition phase
3) follow-up phase

Question 39

explain what the ‘development phase’ of the GMCB model is (Brawley et al., 2014)

Answer 39

• the first couple of weeks
• develop a common group goal
• members learn self-regulatory skills for PA and own action plans
• this phase aims to increase confidence for self-managing PA via practice and feedback

Question 40

explain what the ‘transition phase’ of the GMCB model is (Brawley et al., 2014)

Answer 40

• less structured with the group and the facilitator, and participants begin to self-manage their health behaviour on their own
• the facilitator and the group are still available for ‘booster sessions’ every couple weeks
  e. g. ‘how is it going’? ‘any barriers’?

Question 41

explain what the ‘follow-up phase’ of the GMCB mode; is (Brawley et al., 2014)

Answer 41

• members continue to carry out their plans to maintain PA levels and function independently
• determine if individuals can completely self-manage their condition. if we don’t see a drop off in PA after a couple of months, then it was a success

Question 42

state 2. benefits of the GMCB model (Brawley et al., 2014)

Answer 42

1) no set rules for each week (topics, duration etc…)

2) it is a broad skeleton framework –> easily adaptable

Question 43

explain the purpose of the following study:

‘using the GMCB model for older adults with chronic diseases’ (Rajeski et al., 2003)

Answer 43

12 month exercise control vs GMCB intervention with respect to LT adherence and change in physical function in older adults who have, or are at risk of having, chronic diseases

Question 44

what were the methods used in the following study:

‘using the GMCB model for older adults with chronic diseases’ (Rajeski et al., 2003)

Answer 44

• METs used for each individual to report their PA
• self-efficacy was measured before and after completing a mobility task at baseline
• PA recall (PAR) was also used to denote PA levels

Question 45

what was the results of the following study:

‘using the GMCB model for older adults with chronic diseases’ (Rajeski et al., 2003)

Answer 45

• improvements were significantly better in the GMCB intervention group with regards to increases in PA and self-efficacy
• results suggest that the GMCB model is a useful tool to integrate PA into the lives of older adults

Question 46

what were the 3 main findings from (Brawley et al., 2014) review of GMCB models ?

Answer 46

1) people in GMCB interventions already have more mins MVPA a day by the end of the intensive phase
2) more importantly, people in the GMCB groups are able to maintain their levels of PA post intervention (control groups return to almost baseline levels)
3) we can therefore infer that the development of self-regulatory skills help maintain PA over time

Question 47

(Brawley et al., 2014) also found that GMCB interventions had positive effects on what 4 things:

Answer 47

1) PA adherence
2) self-efficacy
3) physical function
4) body mass

Question 48

state, and possibly explain, the 2 strengths of GMCB models as highlighted by (Brawley et al., 2014)

Answer 48

1) the ability to tailor interventions allows it to be usable across many situations, contexts, ages, etc…
- as the focus is on individual goals, it is appropriate for all

2) it is very inexpensive - only really need a place for meetings and a facilitator

Question 49

state 2 future research recommendations of GMCB interventions as highlighted by (Brawley et al., 2014)

Answer 49

1) research its application in intervening with those who suffer from chronic diseases
2) further examination/expansion of the effect of the group within the model to see how they can be maximised to cause change

Question 50

why use school based interventions ?

Answer 50

‘the primary institution with responsibility for promoting activity in young people’ (Cale & Harris., 2006)

Question 51

state 4 reasons to use school-based interventions

Answer 51

1) schools can access almost all children
2) children spend approx. 40% of their waking hours at schools
3) you can modify children’s exposure to health messages and expertise
4) can target the processes we spoke about in the MAGI framework

Question 52

what was the purpose of the following study:

‘Jump-In - Kids in Motion’ (Jurg et al., 2006)

Answer 52

to assess whether the systematically developed school-based intervention of ‘Jump In’ helps raise PA levels in school children in a pre-test post-test design

Question 53

what was the method of the following study:

‘Jump-In - Kids in Motion’ (Jurg et al., 2006)

Answer 53

• consisted of 6 programme components:

1) school based activities (school hours)
2) the class move (5 min activity breaks)
3) ‘choose your card’ game (raises awareness of PA benefits)
4) parental informations service (inform them how they can facilitate child PA)
5) pupil follow-up system (check PA progress)
6) activity week (All of the above in high intensity)

Question 54

what were the main measures to the following study:

‘Jump-In - Kids in Motion’ (Jurg et al., 2006)

Answer 54

1) questionnaire to schools to assess their use of ‘Jump-In’

2) semi-structured interview style questions with schools gave insights into the programme

Question 55

what were the results to the following programme:

‘Jump-In - Kids in Motion’ (Jurg et al., 2006)

Answer 55

• observed a small increase in PA levels in the schools that undertook the programme (expectancy effects?)
• no changes in the students psychosocial measures such as their self-efficacy or intention to be active in the future ***

Question 56

state 3 limitations of the following study:

‘Jump-In - Kids in Motion’ (Jurg et al., 2006)

Answer 56

1) a lot of time, money, and resources for such a small impact
2) activity based on recall of PA levels from children (cohort effects?)
3) schools were not randomised into intervention and control groups (expectancy effects?)

Question 57

state the purpose of the following study:

‘a systematic review of school-based PA interventions with follow-ups’ (Lai et al., 2014)

Answer 57

the aim of this systematic review was to determine whether children and adolescents who have participated in school-based interventions have sustained outcomes in PA, fitness, and/or fundamental movement skill (FMS)

Question 58

what was the method of the following study:

‘a systematic review of school-based PA interventions with follow-ups’ (Lai et al., 2014)

Answer 58

a systematic search of 6 databases from 1995 to 2012 including school-based interventions measuring the effectiveness on PA, fitness, and FMS with at least a 6-month follow-up

Question 59

what were the results to the following study:

‘a systematic review of school-based PA interventions with follow-ups’ (Lai et al., 2014)

Answer 59

• 10/13 studies found a small sustained effect on PA
• 1/13 studies found a sustained impact on fitness
• 2/13 reported improvements in fundamental movement skill (FMS)
• mean difference in PA was 3-14 mins PA a day (6 days a week, not 7) –> cost vs benefit ?

Question 60

state, and possibly explain, 2 limitations of the following study:

‘a systematic review of school-based PA interventions with follow-ups’ (Lai et al., 2014)

Answer 60

1) no studies matched original methodological criteria (e.g. - assessor blinding, clarity on randomisation process)

2) most studies did not to a LT follow-up, so results should be viewed with caution
- time and budget often make longitudinal studies more difficult

Question 61

state 2 future research recommendations made from the following study:

‘a systematic review of school-based PA interventions with follow-ups’ (Lai et al., 2014)

Answer 61

1) experiment with type and doses of exercise best for prolonged results/adherence
2) more studies are required on PA interventions for their effects on fundamental movement skills (FMS) as there is a lot more to understand on this concept in schoolchildren

Question 62

what was the purpose of the following study:

‘specific strategies for PA promotion in kids - a systematic review’ (McDonald et al., 2018)

Answer 62

to summarise and evaluate the impact of PA interventions that were implemented in specific school settings on children’s PA levels in those settings

Question 63

what was the method of the following review:

‘specific strategies for PA promotion in kids - a systematic review’ (McDonald et al., 2018)

Answer 63

• 4 databases searched to identify interventions aimed at increasing PA amongst schoolchildren
• included control conditions, evaluated PA as the primary outcome, implemented in school settings, measured PA pre and post trial, participants aged 3-18 years

Question 64

what 5 situations did the following review look at:

‘specific strategies for PA promotion in kids - a systematic review’ (McDonald et al., 2018)

Answer 64

1) active travel
2) after school clubs
3) classroom
4) PE lessons
5) recess

Question 65

what were the results to the following review:

‘specific strategies for PA promotion in kids - a systematic review’ (McDonald et al., 2018)

Answer 65

1) active travel and classroom breaks saw the greatest effect size in increasing PA
- only 38% of the studies showed these benefits
- but these studies did have the greatest methodological quality

2) less than 40% of studies found significant outcomes in PE lessons, recess, or after school clubs
- probably because these are already active times, so unlikely to see significant rises in PA during these times

Question 66

state 3 limitations to the following review:

‘specific strategies for PA promotion in kids - a systematic review’ (McDonald et al., 2018)

Answer 66

• possible that some interventions were missed in the search criteria if researchers did not clearly state how PA was measured or in what context
• lots of papers used self-reported PA measures
• ‘positive outcomes’ were measured as a reflection of the entire sample, so could have had better effects on certain individuals

Question 67

state 2 future research recommendations highlighted in the following review:

‘specific strategies for PA promotion in kids - a systematic review’ (McDonald et al., 2018)

Answer 67

1) could dive further into mechanisms to enhance the positive changes seen in active travel and classroom breaks
2) recommended that more large scale rigorously designed studies are carried out to see the actual effectiveness

Question 68

state some conclusions to school-based interventions

Answer 68

1) there is evidence to reocmmend that school-based interventions can work, but…
- interventions should compromise multiple components (like a menu) and ensure teachers are trained and feel confident at delivering content
2) the least burdensome the intervention, the more effective they are

Question 69

why workplace interventions ? (3 points)

Answer 69

1) adults spend 60% of their waking hours at work
2) inactivity can lead to stress, back pain, obesity, etc…
3) absenteeism, decreased productivity, etc…

Question 70

explain the purpose of the following study:

‘Move to Improve’ (Dishman et al., 2009)

Answer 70

a randomised workplace trial to evaluate the efficiency of ‘Move to Improve’ - a social-ecologic intervention delivered at the workplace to increase leisure time PA

Question 71

what was the method to ‘Move to Improve’ (Dishman et al., 2009)

Answer 71

1) 12 week randomised trial where 1442 individuals split into intervention and control

2) multi-component:
- individual goal setting
- team goals
- incentives for achieving goals
- environmental prompts and education

Question 72

what were the main measures for ‘Move to Improve’ (Dishman et al., 2009)

Answer 72

1) physical activity questionnaire (PAQ)

2) daily pedometer counts

Question 73

what were the results to ‘Move to Improve’ (Dishman et al., 2009)

Answer 73

1) proportion of intervention group meeting the PA guidelines increased from 31% at baseline to 51% post-intervention
2) no change occurred in the control group

** surely it is beneficial to do interventions at work then ?

Question 74

state a strength of ‘Move to Improve’ (Dishman et al., 2009)

Answer 74

• the use of self-reported measures and hard outcomes allows for reliability of PA reports

Question 75

state 2 weaknesses of ‘Move to Improve’ (Dishman et al., 2009)

Answer 75

1) no follow-up conducted to see if the fitness and adherence affects occurred in the LT
2) intervention participants were volunteers, so were probably people who wanted to get more active anyway and saw this as an opportunity

Question 76

state a future research suggestion from ‘Move to Improve’ (Dishman et al., 2009)

Answer 76

future research should look at comparing work place interventions to individual and non-work interventions t critically review their effectiveness

Question 77

state 2 inclusion criteria of the following study:

‘meta-analysis of workplace PA interventions’ (Conn et al., 2009)

Answer 77

1) studies to increase workplace PA from 1969-2007
2) studies focused on chronically ill workers were excluded
3) published and unpublished included (using only published studies may over estimate effect size)
4) small sample size studies included as may report on novel interventions

Question 78

what were the results of the following study:

‘meta-analysis of workplace PA interventions’ (Conn et al., 2009)

Answer 78

• modest (but significant) effect sizes on:

1) improved CV fitness (ES = 0.57)
2) reduced job stress
3) increased daily PA
4) improved job attendance
5) improved body composition
6) improved mood and quality of life

Question 79

state, and explain 2/4 limitations of the following study:

‘meta-analysis of workplace PA interventions’ (Conn et al., 2009)

Answer 79

1) the methods of assessing PA varied a lot
- effect size should be ok due to large number of participants should offset error variance to self-reported measures
- although, the effect sizes were based off a small number of studies for each outcome measure

2) did not look at chronic illnesses
- probably the people most in need of an intervention

3) heterogeneity in methods of interventions
- future research should look at which is best

4) lack of LT follow ups
- were effects enduring
- expensive and resources needed for longitudinal studies

Question 80

(Conn et al., 2009) concluded that work place interventions work best when… (4 points)

Answer 80

1) focus on employee motivation towards health behaviour
2) are guided by behaviour change theory, incorporate goal setting, and monitoring
3) focus on ONE health behaviour at one time
4) walking has had the most significant effect in the work environment

Question 81

state the purpose of the following study

‘the potential benefits of a workplace transport plan’ (Brockman et al., 2011)

Answer 81

to investigate the effect of a workplace travel plan, which mainly focused on restricting parking opportunities, on the level of community and its potential contribution to public health

Question 82

what measures were used in the following study:

‘the potential benefits of a workplace transport plan’ (Brockman et al., 2011)

Answer 82

usual mode of commuting, age, gender, worksite location and distance covered obtained via a questionnaire to staff from the university of Bristol pre and post intervention

Question 83

what were the main methods of the following study

Answer 83

1) increase parking charges
2) better changing facilities
3) bike storage
4) subsidised bike purchase scheme
5) car sharing
6) free uni bus and subsidised city bus passes

Question 84

what were the 3 main results from the following study:

‘the potential benefits of a workplace transport plan’ (Brockman et al., 2011)

Answer 84

1. 1) walkers increased from 19%-30%
2. 2) cyclists increased from 7%-12%
3. 3) car drivers decreased from 50%-33%

2) only walking and drivers had a significant change
- a 2-tailed t test revealed that cycling did not change significantly above the mean year on year

3) a chi squared analysis showed that those aged > 50 had the lowest uptake of alternative commuting methods (28%)
- probably the ones that need to have the improvements in PA levels

Question 85

what are the 2 main implications of the following study:

‘the potential benefits of a workplace transport plan’ (Brockman et al., 2011)

Answer 85

• 70% of the active commuters met the WHO PA guidelines

- the subsidised bikes were what drove the increases in people cycling to work

Question 86

state, and explain, 2 limitations to the following study:

‘the potential benefits of a workplace transport plan’ (Brockman et al., 2011)

Answer 86

1) lack of control group –> can’t infer causality
- however, results do oppose the same 8 year trend increase in car commutes to work across the UK

2) only a 50% respondent rate
- potential for bias due to the high chance that the health conscious individuals were the ones who responded

Question 87

what was the purpose of the following study:

‘systematic review of community based interventions’ (Bock et el., 2014)

Answer 87

to investigate the effectiveness of community-based PA interventions by mode of delivery, study quality, and effectiveness in different sub-groups of the population

Question 88

what was the method to the following review:

‘systematic review of community based interventions’ (Bock et el., 2014)

Answer 88

several post-hoc sub-group comparisons for mode of delivery, study quality, and selected population characteristics using net percentage change in PA outcomes between baseline and follow-up

Question 89

what was the sample of the following study:

‘systematic review of community based interventions’ (Bock et el., 2014)

Answer 89

• 37 RCT’s (reduces bias)

- 18 quasi-experimental studies (great external validity)

Question 90

what were the results to the following study:

‘systematic review of community based interventions’ (Bock et el., 2014)

Answer 90

• an average of > 16% increases in PA
• face-to-face and group interventions appear to be the more effective than mail or phone-based interventions
• it is important to involve the community in both the planning and implementation
• seek support from a range of public, private, and commercial sectors

Question 91

state an implication and a suggestion for future research recommendations highlighted in the following study:

‘systematic review of community based interventions’ (Bock et el., 2014)

Answer 91

• tailoring programmes is important for the recruitment of participants and adherence
• future research should look to compare methods of interventions to help understand what type of exercise has the greatest increase in PA

Question 92

state, and possibly explain, 3 limitations to the following study:

‘systematic review of community based interventions’ (Bock et el., 2014)

Answer 92

1) large variety in follow-up periods (0.3 months to 3 years) –> what’s best
2) small sample size reduces the power of comparisons between modes of PA interventions

3) most studies relied on self-reported measures of PA
- reliability ?
- not enough of a large sample size in each intervention method to offset variation

Question 93

state 3 examples of community based interventions

Answer 93

1) introduction of bike lanes
2) introduction of sports fields/parks
3) increase in/protection of walking routes