Search Results

You are looking at 1 - 2 of 2 items for

  • Author: Andy Pringle x
Clear All Modify Search
Restricted access

Stephen Zwolinsky, James McKenna, Andy Pringle, Paul Widdop, Claire Griffiths, Michelle Mellis, Zoe Rutherford and Peter Collins

Background:

Increasingly the health impacts of physical inactivity are being distinguished from those of sedentary behavior. Nevertheless, deleterious health prognoses occur when these behaviors combine, making it a Public Health priority to establish the numbers and salient identifying factors of people who live with this injurious combination.

Methods:

Using an observational between-subjects design, a nonprobability sample of 22,836 participants provided data on total daily activity. A 2-step hierarchical cluster analysis identified the optimal number of clusters and the subset of distinguishing variables. Univariate analyses assessed significant cluster differences.

Results:

High levels of sitting clustered with low physical activity. The Ambulatory & Active cluster (n = 6254) sat for 2.5 to 5 h·d−1 and were highly active. They were significantly younger, included a greater proportion of males and reported low Indices of Multiple Deprivation compared with other clusters. Conversely, the Sedentary & Low Active cluster (n = 6286) achieved ≤60 MET·min·wk−1 of physical activity and sat for ≥8 h·d−1. They were the oldest cluster, housed the largest proportion of females and reported moderate Indices of Multiple Deprivation.

Conclusions:

Public Health systems may benefit from developing policy and interventions that do more to limit sedentary behavior and encourage light intensity activity in its place.

Restricted access

Nicholas Gilson, Wendy J. Brown, Guy Faulkner, Jim McKenna, Marie Murphy, Andy Pringle, Karin Proper, Anna Puig-Ribera and Aphroditi Stathi

Background:

This paper aimed to use the Delphi technique to develop a consensus framework for a multinational, workplace walking intervention.

Methods:

Ideas were gathered and ranked from eight recognized and emerging experts in the fields of physical activity and health, from universities in Australia, Canada, England, the Netherlands, Northern Ireland, and Spain. Members of the panel were asked to consider the key characteristics of a successful campus walking intervention. Consensus was reached by an inductive, content analytic approach, conducted through an anonymous, three-round, e-mail process.

Results:

The resulting framework consisted of three interlinking themes defined as “design, implementation, and evaluation.” Top-ranked subitems in these themes included the need to generate research capacity (design), to respond to group needs through different walking approaches (implementation), and to undertake physical activity assessment (evaluation). Themes were set within an underpinning domain, referred to as the “institution” and sites are currently engaging with subitems in this domain, to provide sustainable interventions that refect the practicalities of local contexts and needs.

Conclusions:

Findings provide a unique framework for designing, implementing, and evaluating walking projects in universities and highlight the value of adopting the Delphi technique for planning international, multisite health initiatives.