0
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      A process evaluation of a randomized-controlled trial of community gardening to improve health behaviors and reduce stress and anxiety

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          As part of the Community Activation for Prevention (CAPS) randomized controlled trial (RCT) of community gardening, we conducted a process evaluation to assess the implementation of a community gardening intervention over nine months, as measured by reach, fidelity (delivery, receipt, enactment), and acceptability. Evaluation instruments included repeated semi-structured interviews with study participants, direct observation of community garden sites, and an exit survey of participants. Primary outcomes were diet, physical activity, and anthropometry; secondary outcomes were stress and anxiety. The CAPS trial included 291 participants (19% non-white; 34% Hispanic/Latino; 35% without a college degree; 58% with income < $50,000 per year). Intervention delivery and receipt were high for environmental supports. Garden social events were offered by 73% of gardens, although only 48% of intervention participants reported attending these events. Of the 145 participants assigned to the gardening intervention, 97 (67%) reported gardening the entire season and reported visiting the community garden a median of 90 min per week (range: 0–840). Of the participants who completed the exit survey (48%), 89% were highly satisfied with the overall garden experience. The CAPS trial was favorably received and implemented with high fidelity, supporting the validity of the trial outcomes. These findings suggest that community gardens are a viable health promotion strategy that can be successfully implemented among new gardeners from diverse backgrounds. Strategies that engage new gardeners in the social aspects of the garden environment and connect gardeners with garden “mentors” or “buddies” to ensure new gardeners achieve success in their first years of gardening are recommended.

          Trial registration: NCT03089177. Registered 24 March 2017, https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT03089177.

          Related collections

          Most cited references32

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Book: not found

          Social Foundations of Thought and Action : A Social Cognitive Theory

          Presents a comprehensive theory of human motivation and action from a social-cognitive perspective. This insightful text addresses the prominent roles played by cognitive, vicarious, self-regulatory, and self-reflective processes in psychosocial functioning; emphasizes reciprocal causation through the interplay of cognitive, behavioral, and environmental factors; and systematically applies the basic principles of this theory to personal and social change.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: found
            Is Open Access

            Acceptability of healthcare interventions: an overview of reviews and development of a theoretical framework

            Background It is increasingly acknowledged that ‘acceptability’ should be considered when designing, evaluating and implementing healthcare interventions. However, the published literature offers little guidance on how to define or assess acceptability. The purpose of this study was to develop a multi-construct theoretical framework of acceptability of healthcare interventions that can be applied to assess prospective (i.e. anticipated) and retrospective (i.e. experienced) acceptability from the perspective of intervention delivers and recipients. Methods Two methods were used to select the component constructs of acceptability. 1) An overview of reviews was conducted to identify systematic reviews that claim to define, theorise or measure acceptability of healthcare interventions. 2) Principles of inductive and deductive reasoning were applied to theorise the concept of acceptability and develop a theoretical framework. Steps included (1) defining acceptability; (2) describing its properties and scope and (3) identifying component constructs and empirical indicators. Results From the 43 reviews included in the overview, none explicitly theorised or defined acceptability. Measures used to assess acceptability focused on behaviour (e.g. dropout rates) (23 reviews), affect (i.e. feelings) (5 reviews), cognition (i.e. perceptions) (7 reviews) or a combination of these (8 reviews). From the methods described above we propose a definition: Acceptability is a multi-faceted construct that reflects the extent to which people delivering or receiving a healthcare intervention consider it to be appropriate, based on anticipated or experienced cognitive and emotional responses to the intervention. The theoretical framework of acceptability (TFA) consists of seven component constructs: affective attitude, burden, perceived effectiveness, ethicality, intervention coherence, opportunity costs, and self-efficacy. Conclusion Despite frequent claims that healthcare interventions have assessed acceptability, it is evident that acceptability research could be more robust. The proposed definition of acceptability and the TFA can inform assessment tools and evaluations of the acceptability of new or existing interventions. Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12913-017-2031-8) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              How we design feasibility studies.

              Public health is moving toward the goal of implementing evidence-based interventions. To accomplish this, there is a need to select, adapt, and evaluate intervention studies. Such selection relies, in part, on making judgments about the feasibility of possible interventions and determining whether comprehensive and multilevel evaluations are justified. There exist few published standards and guides to aid these judgments. This article describes the diverse types of feasibility studies conducted in the field of cancer prevention, using a group of recently funded grants from the National Cancer Institute. The grants were submitted in response to a request for applications proposing research to identify feasible interventions for increasing the utilization of the Cancer Information Service among underserved populations.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                jill.litt@colorado.edu
                Journal
                Sci Rep
                Sci Rep
                Scientific Reports
                Nature Publishing Group UK (London )
                2045-2322
                13 June 2024
                13 June 2024
                2024
                : 14
                : 13620
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Department of Environmental Studies, University of Colorado Boulder, ( https://ror.org/02ttsq026) 4001 Discovery Drive, Boulder, CO 80303 USA
                [2 ]Department of Food Science and Human Nutrition, G. Malcolm Trout Building, Room 208C, Michigan State University, ( https://ror.org/05hs6h993) 469 Wilson Road, East Lansing, MI 48824 USA
                [3 ]Department of Community and Behavioural Health, Colorado School of Public Health, ( https://ror.org/005x9g035) Mail Stop B-119, Room W 3140, 13001 East 17th Place, Aurora, CO 80045 USA
                [4 ]Denver Urban Gardens, ( https://ror.org/04xge3a12) 1031 33rd Street, Suite 100, Denver, CO 80205 USA
                Article
                63889
                10.1038/s41598-024-63889-w
                11176184
                38871715
                0f9ee392-4b03-47b9-9527-87e6894c65e7
                © The Author(s) 2024

                Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.

                History
                : 14 December 2023
                : 3 June 2024
                Funding
                Funded by: FundRef http://dx.doi.org/10.13039/100000048, American Cancer Society;
                Award ID: 130091-RSG-16-169-01-CPPB
                Funded by: FundRef http://dx.doi.org/10.13039/100005825, National Institute of Food and Agriculture;
                Award ID: MICL02410
                Award Recipient :
                Funded by: FundRef http://dx.doi.org/10.13039/100013678, Cancer Center, University of Colorado;
                Categories
                Article
                Custom metadata
                © Springer Nature Limited 2024

                Uncategorized
                cancer prevention,psychology and behaviour,environmental social sciences,risk factors,cancer,cardiovascular diseases,anxiety

                Comments

                Comment on this article