Back to Annual Meeting Page		American Public Health Association 133rd Annual Meeting & Exposition December 10-14, 2005 Philadelphia, PA

Abstract #111772

Carol E. Rheaume, MSPH, Prevention Research Center, University of South Carolina School of Public Health, 730 Devine Street, Colu, SC 29208, 803-777-5054, rheaume@gwm.sc.edu, Sarah F. Griffin, PhD, Prevention Research Center, University of South Carolina, 730 Devine Street, Columbia, SC 29208, Sara Wilcox, PhD, Arnold School of Public Health, University of South Carolina, Department of Exercise Science, 1300 Wheat Street, Columbia, SC 29208, Diana L. Lattimore, MS, Arnold School of Public Health, Department of Exercise Science, University of South Carolina, 1300 Wheat Street, Columbia, SC 29208, Laura C. Leviton, PhD, Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, Rt. 1 and College Rd. East, Princeton, NJ 08543-2316, Michelle Renee Umstattd, MS, CHES, Arnold School of Public Health, HPEB, University of South Carolina, 1100 Pulaski St. #724, Columbia, SC 29201, and Julie Freelove-Charton, Prevention Research Center, University of South Carolina Arnold Shcool of Public Health, 730 Devine Street, Columbia, SC 29208.

Active for Life (AFL) is an RWJF funded program that was established to learn how to deliver, sustain and evaluate evidence-based physical activity (PA) programs to mid-life and older adults through community organizations. Nine community grantees implement either Active Choices (AC), a telephone-based program developed by researchers at Stanford University, or Active Living Every Day (ALED), a group-based program developed by The Cooper Institute and Human Kinetics. Both programs focus on teaching individuals skills needed to increase lifestyle PA.

The process evaluation was developed in collaboration with the AFL National Program Office, grantees, and program developers. One component of the process evaluation gathered participant feedback through open-ended questions on a post-program survey. This participant feedback was crucial during the pilot year for improving program delivery and meeting participants' needs.

Participants from all sites returned post- program surveys for a response rate of 68% (n=619). Participants are 50 or older with 80% female and 30% ethnic minority. Participants described several program components that were instrumental in helping them to increase their PA, including the pedometer, contact with their health educator and group interaction. Participants identified numerous ways their lives have improved as a result of the program, including increased PA, and reported improved self-esteem and well-being. Participants also listed numerous ways they would change the program, including modifying program logistics, being introduced to different types of PA and having greater follow-up. Discussion of the findings will demonstrate the role and usefulness of participant feedback in program evaluation.

Learning Objectives: