Department of Exercise Science, University of South Carolina,Columbia, South Carolina 29201, USA.
Am J Health Promot. 2011 Sep-Oct;26(1):2-5. doi: 10.4278/ajhp.091106-ARB-357.
Examine the effects of a multicomponent intervention on stair usage.
Nonrandomized controlled intervention.
Two multistory university dormitories.
Total of 5711 direct observations of university dormitory residents.
The 2-week "Step It UP" intervention used poster prompts and fun/competitive challenges with incentives to encourage residents to take the stairs instead of the elevators.
Ascending stair and elevator use was directly observed and coded for gender at high traffic times in intervention and control dormitories for 14 nonconsecutive hours over 1 week each at baseline, midintervention, and 1 week postintervention.
The proportions of ascending stair and elevator users were compared using χ(2) analyses.
Baseline stair use was equal between intervention and control dormitories (24.9% and 27.8%, respectively; χ(2)[1, N = 1849] = .08; p = .77). Stair use significantly increased from baseline in the intervention dormitory to 33.24% (χ(2)[1, N = 2192] = 18.44; p < .001) compared with no change in the control. Stair use returned to baseline in the intervention dormitory at postintervention (25.4%; χ(2)[1, N = 2297] = .08; p = .78). There were no significant differences between genders.
This multicomponent, short-duration intervention significantly increased stair usage in a university dormitory relative to the control but was unable to sustain the increase when prompts were removed. Campaigns to sustain stair use are needed. Formative assessment is required to determine what combinations of components may yield the most cost-effective approach for future interventions.
研究多组分干预对楼梯使用的影响。
非随机对照干预。
两座多层大学宿舍。
共观察了 5711 名大学宿舍居民的直接观察结果。
为期两周的“Step It UP”干预措施使用海报提示和有趣/有竞争力的挑战,并提供奖励,以鼓励居民选择楼梯而不是电梯。
在干预和对照宿舍的高交通时段,在干预和对照宿舍中,在基线、干预中期和干预后 1 周的 14 个非连续小时内,对男女使用楼梯和电梯进行了直接观察和编码。
使用 χ(2)分析比较了上升楼梯和电梯使用者的比例。
干预和对照宿舍的基线楼梯使用率相等(分别为 24.9%和 27.8%;χ(2)[1, N = 1849] = .08;p = .77)。与对照宿舍相比,干预宿舍的楼梯使用率从基线显著增加到 33.24%(χ(2)[1, N = 2192] = 18.44;p <.001)。干预宿舍的楼梯使用率在干预后恢复到基线(25.4%;χ(2)[1, N = 2297] = .08;p = .78)。性别之间没有显著差异。
这项多组分、短时间干预措施显著增加了大学宿舍的楼梯使用率,与对照组相比,但在去除提示后,无法维持这种增长。需要开展宣传活动来维持楼梯的使用。需要进行形成性评估,以确定哪些组件组合可能为未来的干预措施提供最具成本效益的方法。