TABLE 1.
Quarterly Process Data for Implementation Dose and Fidelity from Baseline to 12 Months of the Walking Programs: Positive Action for Today’s Health Trial, United States, February 2009–January 2010
| 1st-Quarter Outcomes | 2nd-Quarter Outcomes | 3rd-Quarter Outcomes | 4th-Quarter Outcomes | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Program Component, Essential Element, and Measure and Item | W + SM | WO | W + SM | WO | W + SM | WO | W + SM | WO |
| Implementation dose | ||||||||
| Access for walking in neighborhood (walks completed on the identified walking trail),a % (no.) | 100 (4) | 50 (2)b | 100 (12) | 78 (10) | 100 (12) | 100 (6) | 100 (11) | 100 (5) |
| Safety and positive perceptions of safety | ||||||||
| Walks at which police present,a % (no.) | 100 (4) | 100 (2) | 92 (12) | 100 (9) | 100 (12) | 100 (6) | 82 (11) | 100 (5) |
| Scores for presence of stray dogs,a,c mean (no.) | 3.00 (4) | 3.00 (2) | 2.91 (11) | 2.88 (8) | 2.64 (11) | 2.67 (6) | 2.57 (7) | 1.50 (2)b |
| Resident social connectedness and motivation to walk,d % (no.) | ||||||||
| Targeted walkers received a calendara | … | … | … | … | … | … | 87 (134) | … |
| Targeted walkers received a door hangera | … | … | … | … | … | … | 81 (134) | … |
| Implementation fidelity | ||||||||
| Access for walking in neighborhood,e mean (no.) | ||||||||
| Scores for presence of overgrowth and sidewalk qualitya,c | 2.00 (4)b | 2.00 (2)b | 2.82 (11) | 2.63 (8) | 2.73 (11) | 2.00 (6)b | 2.57 (7) | 2.00 (2)b |
| Scores for presence of litter and vandalisma,c | 2.00 (4)b | 2.50 (2) | 2.55 (11) | 2.50 (8) | 2.09 (11)b | 2.33 (6)b | 2.57 (7) | 2.00 (2)b |
| Safety and positive perceptions of safetyf | ||||||||
| Times WLs followed pedestrian safety rules,a % (no.) | 100 (4) | 50 (2)b | 67 (12)b | 86 (7) | 75 (12) | 67 (6)b | 75 (8) | 67 (3)b |
| Times WLs completed 2 of 3 injury prevention protocols,a % (no.) | 75 (4) | 0 (2)b | 55 (11)b | 63 (8)b | 92 (12) | 83 (6) | 30 (10)b | 100 (3) |
| Percent times walkers were not injured,a % (no.) | 100 (4) | 100 (2) | 100 (12) | 100 (9) | 100 (12) | 100 (6) | 100 (11) | 100 (5) |
| Mean scores for walker comfort,a,c mean (no.) | 3.00 (3) | 3.00 (2) | 2.78 (9) | 3.00 (7) | 3.00 (10) | 3.00 (5) | 2.75 (8) | 3.00 (3) |
| Resident social connectedness of program and motivation to walkg | ||||||||
| Targeted walkers reached by phone and received program information,a % (no.) | … | … | … | … | 36 (134) | … | 34 (134) | … |
| PSs per quarter completed/scheduled,h % (no.) | … | … | 100 (1) | … | 93 (42) | … | 89 (56) | … |
| Total walks that were PSs,h % (no.) | … | … | 2 (62) | … | 40 (106) | … | 42 (134) | … |
| Association of total walkers with PSs,h r (no.) | … | … | .44 (59) | … | .61 (102) | … | .39 (125) | … |
Note. PS = Pride Stride; SM = social marketing; W + SM = walking-plus-social marketing; WL = walking leader; WO = walking-only. Ellipses indicate that data were not collected during this quarter.
Items were collected from internal process evaluation surveys.
Outcomes for which adequate dose or fidelity was not achieved.
Item scores ranged from 1 to 3, with 1 indicating the greatest presence of trail barriers, and 3 indicating the least.
SM campaign will promote messages for walking to increase motivation. Program component was relevant only to the W + SM program, resulting in no data for the WO program.
Walking trail free from structural and aesthetic barriers.
Walking leaders adhere to personal safety guidelines and walkers are comfortable with police.
SM campaign increases connectedness and SM campaign promotes PSs to increase walking. Program component was relevant only to the W + SM program, resulting in no data for the WO program.
Items were collected from walking attendance logs.