Kellstedt Debra K, Schenkelberg Michaela A, Essay Ann M, Welk Gregory J, Rosenkranz Richard R, Idoate Regina, Ramos Athena K, Grimm Brandon, Dzewaltowski David A
Family & Community Health, Texas A&M AgriLife Extension, College Station, TX 77843, USA.
School of Health and Kinesiology, University of Nebraska at Omaha, Omaha, NE 68182, USA.
Prev Med Rep. 2021 Jul 6;23:101486. doi: 10.1016/j.pmedr.2021.101486. eCollection 2021 Sep.
A common way to address rural population health issues is through community stakeholders working together. Youth physical activity (PA) happens in adult-led in-school and out-of-school group opportunities that vary across communities and generally occur in isolated settings. This study explores similarities and differences in rural community system structure and collaborative process variables that help to conceptualize the collaborative impact influencing population youth PA outcomes. Stakeholders (Community 1, = 23; Community 2, = 26) and youth (Community 1, = 205; Community 2, = 213) were recruited in 2018-2019 as part of Wellscapes, a hybrid implementation-effectiveness community randomized trial. A stakeholder survey ( = 49) measured community system structures and collaboration processes. Youth completed the Youth Activity Profile to measure PA levels. More Community 1 respondents than Community 2 resided within city limits (73.9% vs. 34.6%). Collective efficacy was significantly greater in Community 1 ( = 4.0, = 0.5) than in 2 ( = 3.2, = 0.4), < 0.05. Perceptions of trust scored significantly greater in Community 1 ( = 4.1, = 0.3) than in 2 ( = 3.3, = 0.5), < 0.05. Though both communities met rural definitions and had stakeholder investment, Community 1 had a greater proportion of PA-implementing stakeholders and more residing within city limits which may have influenced that community's higher scores in collective efficacy and trust. Community 2 had more stakeholders in administrator roles and yielded greater youth PA levels. Unique and common variables of rural communities should be considered in understanding system factors that impact youth PA.
解决农村人口健康问题的一种常见方法是让社区利益相关者共同努力。青少年体育活动(PA)是在成人主导的校内和校外团体活动中进行的,这些活动因社区而异,并且通常在孤立的环境中开展。本研究探讨了农村社区系统结构和协作过程变量的异同,这些变量有助于将影响人口青少年体育活动结果的协作影响概念化。作为“健康景观”(Wellscapes)的一部分,在2018 - 2019年招募了利益相关者(社区1,n = 23;社区2,n = 26)和青少年(社区1,n = 205;社区2,n = 213),“健康景观”是一项混合实施 - 效果社区随机试验。一项利益相关者调查(n = 49)测量了社区系统结构和协作过程。青少年完成了青少年活动概况以测量体育活动水平。居住在城市范围内的社区1受访者比社区2更多(73.9%对34.6%)。社区1的集体效能感(M = 4.0,SD = 0.5)显著高于社区2(M = 3.2,SD = 0.4),p < 0.05。社区1的信任感知得分(M = 4.1,SD = 0.3)显著高于社区2(M = 3.3,SD = 0.5),p < 0.05。尽管两个社区都符合农村定义且有利益相关者投入,但社区1有更大比例的实施体育活动的利益相关者,且更多居住在城市范围内,这可能影响了该社区在集体效能感和信任方面的更高得分。社区2有更多担任行政角色的利益相关者,并且青少年体育活动水平更高。在理解影响青少年体育活动的系统因素时,应考虑农村社区的独特和共同变量。