Search results

Sponsored by the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, the Active for Life (AFL) initiative investigated how two physical activity programs for adults aged 50 and older, Active Choices (AC) and Active Living Every Day (ALED), worked in community settings. Created by researchers at Stanford University, Active Choices used lifestyle counseling and personalized telephone support to encourage older adults to be physically active. In AFL, this was a 6-month program delivered through one face-to-face meeting followed by up to eight one-on-one telephone counseling calls. Active Living Every Day, which was created by the Cooper Institute and Human Kinetics Inc., also provided lifestyle counseling to promote physical activity, but in a classroom and workbook format. During the first three years of the four-year AFL initiative, ALED was delivered as a 20-week program where participants attended weekly small group meetings, but in the last year it was shortened to 12 weekly meetings. Nine organizations received AFL grants to implement the programs during 2003-2006. Four grantees implemented the one-on-one AC model, while five implemented the group-based ALED model.

Data were collected from the AC and ALED sites for both a process and outcomes evaluation. The primary aims of the process evaluation were to (1) monitor the extent to which the grantees demonstrated fidelity to the AC and ALED models in their program implementation, (2) assess staff experiences implementing the programs, and (3) assess participants' impressions of the programs. A quasi-experimental, pre-post study design was used to assess outcomes. Primary aims of the outcomes evaluation were to evaluate the impact of AC and ALED on self-reported physical activity, and to evaluate the impact of the programs on self-reported stress, depressive symptoms, and satisfaction with body function and appearance. Secondary aims of the outcome evaluation were to (1) evaluate the impact of the programs on measures of functional fitness, (2) examine whether changes in self-reported physical activity and functional fitness were moderated by participant characteristics, including age, gender, race, baseline physical activity self-efficacy, and baseline physical activity social support, and (3) examine whether changes in self-reported physical activity were consistent with a mediation model for physical activity self-efficacy and physical activity social support.

The collection has 14 data files (datasets). Datasets 1-7 constitute the process evaluation data, and Datasets 8-14 the outcomes evaluation data:

Dataset 1 (AC Initial Face-to-Face Sessions Data) contains information about the initial face-to-face AC session: the format, date, and length of the session, whether the 8 steps required in the face-to-face session were completed, what was discussed between the health educator and the participant related to physical activity plans, interests, benefits, and barriers, and the health educator's progress notes. The file contains one record for each AC participant.

Dataset 2 (AC Completed Calls Data) comprises information about the completed AC calls, but does not cover the topics discussed on the calls. Recorded information about each call includes the date and length of the call, the health educator's progress notes, and whether the participant was assessed for injury, light activity, moderate activity, exercise goals, or exercise intentions. Each call is represented by a separate record in the data file and, typically, there are multiple records per participant.

Dataset 3 (AC Topics Discussed on Completed Calls ) contains information about the topics discussed on each completed AC call, e.g., exercise barriers/benefits, previous exercise experiences, goal setting, long term goals, injury prevention, rewards/reinforcement, social support, progress tracking, and relapse prevention. Each record in the file represents one topic and there are often multiple records per call for each participant.

Dataset 4 (AC Aggregate Call Data) aggregates the call data across calls for each AC participant. For example, for a given participant, this dataset shows the total number of calls completed, the number of calls where injury/health problems were assessed, etc. The file contains one record per participant.

Dataset 5 (ALED Sessions Data) contains information about each class session for every ALED group, including the session date, start time, and end time, learning activities covered in the session, participant evaluations of the session and the facilitator, facilitator progress notes, the number of participants who were in various stages of readiness for moderate exercise, and the number of participants who tracked physical activity and thoughts about physical activity. This file has one record for each session of every ALED group.

Dataset 6 (ALED Attendance and Tracking Data (Years 2-4)) consists of participant-level attendance and tracking data for every ALED session during the second to fourth years of the evaluation, including the participant's attendance at the session, whether the participant's stage of readiness was assessed, and whether the participant tracked thoughts about physical activity or actual physical activity. There is no participant-level ALED data for the first year. Each participant has a separate record for each session. Thus, the file contains 20 records per participant in the years 2-3, and 12 records per participant in year 4.

Dataset 7 (ALED Aggregate Attendance and Tracking Data (Years 2-4)) contains ALED attendance and tracking data for each participant in years 2-4, aggregated across the sessions. The data file has one record for each participant.

Dataset 8 (Demographics) comprises program information (e.g., program status, start date, end date, site, etc.), demographic information (e.g., age, gender, race, Hispanic origin, employment status, income, and the participant's state and ZIP code of residence), and responses to the Physical Activity Readiness Questionnaire (PAR-Q), a screening tool that was used to assess possible risks of exercising based on answers to specific health history questions. The file contains one record for each AFL participant, except for those with a status of "nonstarter" or "repeater."

Datasets 9 (Pretest Survey Data) and 10 (Posttest Survey Data) contain data from the Pretest and Posttest Surveys. The Pretest Survey was administered at the beginning of the AC and ALED programs, while the Posttest Survey was administered at their end. Topics covered by the surveys include social and recreational activities, activities undertaken for exercise, perceived stress, depressive symptoms, satisfaction with body appearance and function, social support for physical activity, self-efficacy for physical activity, neighborhood environment, health conditions, health-related quality of life, caregiving, and self-reported height and weight. Both surveys included items from the Community Health Activities Model Program for Seniors Physical Activity Questionnaire (CHAMPS), the Center for Epidemiological Studies Depression Questionnaire (CES-D), the Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System Questionnaires (BRFSS), and the International Physical Activity Prevalence Study Environmental Module. These data files each have one record for each participant who submitted a questionnaire.

Dataset 11 (ALED Week 12 Survey Data (Year 4)) contains responses to the ALED Week 12 Posttest Survey, which was used to evaluate the 12-week adaptation of ALED in Year 4. (In Year 4, ALED participants completed both a 12- and 20-week posttest survey). There is one record for each participant who returned this survey.

Dataset 12 (Six-Month Posttest Follow-Up Survey Data (Years 3-4)) comprises data from a special 6-month follow-up survey which was administered in years 3-4 in six of the ALED sites and one of the AC sites. Participants were questioned about their current physical activities, weight, health-related quality of life, satisfaction with bodily function, and other topics. As with Datasets 9-11, the data file contains one record for each participant who returned a questionnaire.

Dataset 13 (Functional Fitness Tests Data) contains the results of pretest and posttest functional fitness tests which were administered by one ALED grantee. Four tests were adminstered: (1) the 30-Foot Walk Test, (2) the 30-Second Chair Stand, (3) 8-Foot Up and Go, and (4) the Chair Sit and Reach Test. This participant-level data file also includes pretest height measurements plus pretest and posttest weight measurements.

Dataset 14 (Participants' Impressions of the Programs (Years 1, 3, and 4)) contains data collected by the last sections of the Posttest Survey, ALED Week 12 survey, and 6-Month Follow-up Survey. The topics it covers include the participants' impressions of the programs, participation in physical activities, and changes (compared to before they started the AFL program) in motivation to be physically active, actual level of physical activity, medical and health conditions, overall pain, flexibility/limberness, level of stress, happiness, and enjoyment of life. The file has a separate record for each survey completed by the participants. Thus, there are 1-3 records per participant.

The American Health Values Survey (AHVS) was conducted by the National Opinion Research Center (NORC) at the University of Chicago in order to develop a typology of Americans based on their health values and beliefs. The survey, of more than 10,000 adults from five individual communities, examined values and beliefs related to health at both the individual as well as societal levels. The community surveys sought to compare differences between the local typologies, but also to investigate any similarities with national typology groups. The survey assessed the importance of health in:

• day-to-day personal life (i.e. the amount of effort spent on disease prevention as well as appropriate seeking of medical care);
• equity, the value placed on the opportunity to succeed generally in life as well as on health equity;
• social solidarity, the importance of taking into account the needs of others as well as personal needs;
• health care disparities, views about how easy/hard it is for African Americans, Latinos and low-income Americans to get quality health care;
• and, the importance of the social determinants of health.

In addition, the survey also explored views about how active government should be in health; collective efficacy, the ease of affecting positive community change by working with others; and health-related civic engagement e.g. the support of health charities and organizations working on health issues.

There are public-use and restricted-use versions of the data provided for each of the five sentinel communities participating in this study. Although each site differs on the number of respondents as listed below, each data file contains the same 143 variables for each site and version of the data. The only difference between the public-use versus restricted-use versions of the data is the variable ZIP, which was MASKED in the public-use version.

• DS1 and DS2 - Baltimore, Maryland: 2,139
• DS3 and DS4 - Maricopa County, Arizona: 2,247
• DS5 and DS6 - Stockton, California: 2,127
• DS7 and DS8 - Mobile, Alabama: 1,821
• DS9 and DS10 - North Central counties in Nebraska: 2,846

This is the second round of the Community Partnerships for Older Adults (CPFOA) Program Survey of Older Adults. Like the first round, which was fielded in 2002 and released as ICPSR 4301 (Community Partnerships for Older Adults (CPOA) Program Survey of Older Adults, 2002), the second round was conducted as part of the evaluation of the CPFOA Program, an initiative of the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation (RWJF) aimed at promoting improvements in the organization and delivery of long-term care and supportive services for older adults through local public-private partnerships. The 2002 survey was conducted in the 13 communities in which partnerships received development grants from RWJF, and, in 2008, the survey was repeated in the eight of them in which partnerships received implementation grants from the Foundation. The goal of the survey was to improve understanding of the characteristics of older adults, their knowledge and perceptions about issues related to long-term care, and their use of long-term care services and support. In addition, the data collected by the survey enabled the communities to target the partnership's activities in the most effective way.

The second round was based on the 2002 survey instrument. Changes to the instrument were minimized so that the data from the 2002 and 2008 rounds would be comparable. The instrument was modified to delete questions that had low item response in 2002, to add questions requested by the partnerships, to add questions for decision-makers, or to modify questions that were outdated. As in 2002, the 2008 survey interviewed respondents about supportive and long-term care services for older adults in their communities, including the availability, use of, and quality of the services and sources of information about them. Respondents were asked if they expected to stay in their community, if their homes needed repairs or modifications to improve their ability to live in them, how important it was to be able to live in their own home as they grew older, the age at which they thought they would need help to continue living in their own home, and the age at which they thought they could no longer live at home because of health problems. The survey also collected information on health status, problems with activities of everyday life, health insurance coverage and long-term care insurance, hospital stays, living arrangements, social activities, support from family and friends, access to transportation, and demographic characteristics.

The Helping Young Smokers Quit (HYSQ) initiative was a multi-phase project that addressed the critical need to disseminate effective, developmentally appropriate cessation programs for young smokers. Phase I identified and described tobacco treatment programs available for youth in the United States, Phase II evaluated smoking secession programs tailored for youth to help understand what works, and Phase III identified factors associated with program sustainability. Phase II collected data from five sources: (1) program participants, (2) program providers, (3) program curricula, (4) organizational leaders, and (5) community leaders and community ordinances.

Program participants were interviewed at baseline, end-of program, 6-month follow-up, and 12-month follow-up. Topics covered by the interviews include age, gender, race, Hispanic origin, language spoken at home, employment, income, religiosity, school enrollment, education level, school grades, height, weight, extracurricular activities, recreation, sports, exercise, aspirations after high school, psychological well-being, alcohol consumption, cigarette use and use of other tobacco products, attitudes about smoking, plans to stop/continue smoking, attempts to quit smoking, reasons for participating in the program, topics/issues covered by the program, opinions about the program, and smoking experience since the beginning of the program. In addition, for each follow-up survey, the participants provided a breath sample for carbon monoxide analysis to validate self-reported quit status.

After the last session of each program delivery, the program providers, such as program leaders and cessation counselors, were interviewed about the content and delivery of the program and the reactions of the participants and themselves to the program as delivered. The program providers also kept attendance records.

Curriculum content was abstracted from program manuals and other materials used in each program.

Organizational leaders of the organizations that offered the programs were surveyed about various aspects of each organization, including the organization's smoking cessation program and the organization's mission, general operations, and smoking-related policies and practices.

Community-level information was collected in two ways: (1) interviews of community leaders representing local health departments, school boards, and juvenile justice offices, and (2) archival research of public ordinances relevant to tobacco and control policies.

Nine data files/datasets constitute the data. Datasets 1-4 contain the participant questionnaire data, carbon monoxide measurement data, and program attendance data. Dataset 5 comprises information about each program and its curriculum, some information about the community in which the program was located, and summary data about enforcement of tobacco-related ordinances. Dataset 6 contains information about about the program providers and each program delivery, including recruitment, logistics, content, and the reactions of providers and participants. Dataset 7 covers administrative aspects of the smoking cessation programs and each offering organization's mission, general operations, and smoking-related policies and norms. Dataset 8 contains information about local and state-level tobacco-related ordinances for every state and local jurisdiction where each program was located, and Dataset 9 condenses the information in Dataset 8 into one summary record for each community. The unit of observation for Datasets 1-4 is the participant, for Datasets 5 and 7 the smoking cessation program/offering organization, for Dataset 6 the program delivery/program cohort, for Dataset 8 the ordinance, and for Dataset 9 the community.

The Multicity Study of the Impact of Taxes on Sugar-Sweetened Beverages was a multi-year study intended to provide comprehensive information about the impacts of sugar-sweetened beverage taxes on retail prices, purchases, and consumption. The study was conducted in two cities that recently implemented an excise tax on sugar-sweetened beverages: Philadelphia, PA and Oakland, CA.

The study consists of six datasets, with three datasets covering Philadelphia and three covering Oakland. The store observation data contain price information for sodas, juices, and other beverages. The purchase datasets contain information from survey questions fielded at stores, including basic demographic information (race and ethnicity, gender, income), the number of people in the participant's household, and how often they shop for beverages at that store and others. The household datasets contain information from survey questions fielded during the household beverages consumption survey; it includes demographic information and beverage consumption information for a household adult and a household child.

The study also included an analysis of strategic responses to the taxes, including cross-border shopping by consumers, and retailers changing the availability of various beverages.