Use the Back button in your browser to see the other results of your search or to select another record.

Detailed Search Results

Effectiveness of prescribing physical activity in parks to improve health and wellbeing -- the park prescription randomized controlled trial
Muller-Riemenschneider F, Petrunoff N, Yao J, Ng A, Sia A, Ramiah A, Wong M, Han J, Tai BC, Uijtdewilligen L
The International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity 2020 Mar 17;17(42):Epub
clinical trial
7/10 [Eligibility criteria: Yes; Random allocation: Yes; Concealed allocation: Yes; Baseline comparability: Yes; Blind subjects: No; Blind therapists: No; Blind assessors: No; Adequate follow-up: Yes; Intention-to-treat analysis: Yes; Between-group comparisons: Yes; Point estimates and variability: Yes. Note: Eligibility criteria item does not contribute to total score] *This score has been confirmed*

BACKGROUND: Programs promoting population health through physical activity (PA) and exposure to nature are popular, but few have been evaluated in randomized-controlled trials (RCTs). OBJECTIVE: To investigate the effectiveness of a park prescription intervention (PPI) for improving total moderate-to-vigorous PA (MVPA), other PA related behaviors, quality of life (QoL) and cardio-metabolic health among adults. METHODS: Healthy individuals aged 40 to 65 years were recruited through community health screenings and randomly assigned to (1) PPI: face-to-face Park Prescription plus invitation to weekly exercise sessions in parks, or (2) control: standard PA materials. After the six-month intervention, participants completed accelerometer assessments, questionnaires on health behaviors and QoL, and health screenings. Independent sample t-tests were used to compare outcomes between groups, with secondary analysis adjusted for co-variates via multiple linear regression. A p-value < 0.05 was considered statistically significant. RESULTS: Eighty participants were allocated to each group. Participants with mean age of 51.1 (standard deviation 6.3) years were predominantly female (79%) and of Chinese ethnicity (81%). Participation in the group exercise started at 48% and declined to 24% by week 26. At six-months, 145 (91%) participants attended health screenings for outcome measure collection, and 126 (79%) provided valid accelerometer data. Time spent in MVPA favored the PPI group but this difference was not statistically significant (4.4 (-43.8 to 52.7) minutes/week; when removing 2 extreme outliers 26.8 (-9.7 to 63.4) minutes/week). Time spent in parks (147.5 (2.1 to 292.9) minutes/month), PA in parks (192.5 (59.5 to 325.5) minutes/month), and recreational PA (48.7 (1.4 to 96.0) minutes/week) were significantly greater in the PPI group. PPI also significantly improved psychological QoL (4.0 (0.0 to 8.0). DISCUSSION: PPI improved park use, PA in parks, recreational PA, and psychological QoL but not total MVPA. Future RCTs' are warranted to investigate PPI in different target populations and to provide further evidence for improvements in health outcomes. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02615392, 26 November 2015.

Full text (sometimes free) may be available at these link(s):      help