Not provided
| ID | Type | Description | Link |
|---|---|---|---|
| PJT-169159 | Other Grant/Funding Number | Canadian Institutes of Health Research |
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
| Name | Class |
|---|---|
| Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR) | OTHER_GOV |
| Active Aging Society | OTHER |
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
The objectives of this study are to: 1) evaluate whether Choose to Move (CTM) Phase 4 improves health outcomes in older adults who participate and 2) assess whether CTM Phase 4 is delivered as planned and what factors support or inhibit its delivery at scale.
CTM Phase 4 is a 3-month, choice-based program for low active older adults being scaled-up across British Columbia (BC), Canada. The goals of CTM are to enhance physical activity, mobility and social connectedness in older adults living in BC, Canada.
Choose to Move (CTM) Phase 4 is a 3-month, choice-based program for low active older adults being scaled-up in phases across British Columbia (BC), Canada. Within CTM (Phase 4), trained activity coaches support older adults in two ways. First, in a one-on-one consultation, activity coaches help participants to set goals and create action plans for physical activity tailored to each person's interests and abilities. Older adults can choose to participate in individual or group-based activities. Second, activity coaches facilitate 8 group meetings with small groups of participants. Activity coaches and recreation departments across BC are trained and provided with resources to deliver CTM.
Objectives:
Study Design:
The investigators use a hybrid type 2 effectiveness-implementation (Curran et al 2012) pre-post study design to evaluate CTM. The investigators use multiple methods (quantitative and qualitative) and collect data at 0 (baseline), 3 (post-intervention), 6 (3 months post-intervention), 15 (12 months post-intervention) and 27 (24 months post-intervention) months to assess impact and implementation of CTM.
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
| Label | Type | Description | Intervention Names |
|---|---|---|---|
| Choose to Move | Experimental | CTM (Phase 4) is a 3-month, flexible, choice-based program for low active older adults that can be delivered in-person or online. CTM includes
|
|
| Name | Type | Description | Arm Group Labels | Other Names |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Choose to Move | Behavioral | As described under study arm description. |
|
| Measure | Description | Time Frame |
|---|---|---|
| Change in physical activity | The single item physical activity questionnaire will be used to measure physical activity. Output variable is self-reported number of days/week ≥30 min physical activity in the past week (range 0-7). | 0, 3, 6, 15, 27-months |
| Measure | Description | Time Frame |
|---|---|---|
| Change in capacity for mobility | Two items will assess participants' ability to walk a quarter of a mile and up 10 steps. The output variable is self-reported presence of mobility-disability (no/any difficulty walking 400m or climbing one flight of stairs). | 0, 3, 6, 15, 27-months |
| Change in physical functioning |
| Measure | Description | Time Frame |
|---|---|---|
| Reach-individual | The number of participants engaged in the intervention will be obtained from program records. | 3-months |
| Reach-organizational | The number of organizations and activity coaches delivering the intervention will be obtained from program records. |
Inclusion Criteria (older adults):
Exclusion Criteria (older adults):
Inclusion Criteria (delivery partners):
Activity Coach inclusion criteria:
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
| Name | Affiliation | Role |
|---|---|---|
| Heather A McKay, PhD | University of British Columbia | Principal Investigator |
| Joanie Sims Gould, PhD | University of British Columbia | Principal Investigator |
| Facility | Status | City | State | ZIP | Country | Contacts |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Centre for Hip Health and Mobility, Robert H.N. Ho Research Centre, University of British Columbia | Vancouver | British Columbia | V5Z 1M9 | Canada |
| PubMed Identifier | Type | Citation | Retractions |
|---|---|---|---|
| 22310560 | Background | Curran GM, Bauer M, Mittman B, Pyne JM, Stetler C. Effectiveness-implementation hybrid designs: combining elements of clinical effectiveness and implementation research to enhance public health impact. Med Care. 2012 Mar;50(3):217-26. doi: 10.1097/MLR.0b013e3182408812. | |
| 18504506 | Background | Hughes ME, Waite LJ, Hawkley LC, Cacioppo JT. A Short Scale for Measuring Loneliness in Large Surveys: Results From Two Population-Based Studies. Res Aging. 2004;26(6):655-672. doi: 10.1177/0164027504268574. |
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
| ID | Term |
|---|---|
| D051346 | Mobility Limitation |
| D012934 | Social Isolation |
| D057185 | Sedentary Behavior |
| ID | Term |
|---|---|
| D012816 | Signs and Symptoms |
| D013568 | Pathological Conditions, Signs and Symptoms |
| D012919 | Social Behavior |
| D001519 | Behavior |
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
The Physical Functioning Subscale of the SF-36 will be used to assess the physical function aspect of mobility. The measure asks participants to rate if their health limits them in performing 10 different activities. The output variable is an average score (range 0-100) of physical functioning, where a higher score indicates a more favourable health state. |
| 0, 3, 6, 15, 27-months |
| Change in mobility | The Mobility Assessment Tool-Short Form (MAT-sf) will be used to assess mobility. MAT-sf is a validated, short form video-animated tool to assess participant self-perception of mobility. Only participants with an internet connection are able to complete this measure. The output variable is a self-perception of mobility score (range 23.45-67.61) where a higher score indicates greater perceived mobility. | 0, 3, 6, 15, 27-months |
| Change in loneliness | The three-item loneliness scale will be used to assess loneliness. Participants rate three aspects of loneliness. The output variable is loneliness score (range 3-9); lower scores indicate lower levels of loneliness. | 0, 3, 6, 15, 27-months |
| Change in social isolation | A three-item questionnaire adapted from two questions on social contact frequency will be used to assess social isolation. The output variable is social isolation score (range 0-15); higher scores indicate lower levels of social isolation. | 0, 3, 6, 15, 27-months |
| Change in social network | A six-item questionnaire will be used to assess social network. The output variable is an equally weighted sum (range 0-30) where higher scores indicate more social engagement. | 0, 3, 6, 15, 27-months |
| Change in social connectedness | A single item will be used to assess sense of belonging as an indicator of social connectedness. The output variable is sense of belonging score (range 1-4) where lower scores indicate a stronger sense of belonging. | 0, 3, 6, 15, 27-months |
| Change in sitting time | A five-item questionnaire will be used to assess change in sitting time (hours and minutes) each day in the following domains: (a) while travelling to and from places (e.g., work, shops); (b) while at work; (c) while watching television; (d) while using a computer at home; and (e) at leisure not including watching television (e.g., visiting friends, movies, eating out) on a weekday and a weekend day. The output variables are sitting hours per day across 5 domains. | 0, 3, 6, 15, 27-months |
| Change in screen time | A single item will be used to assess screen time. The output variable is hours of screen time per day. | 0, 3, 6, 15, 27-months |
| Change in health-related quality of life (EQ-5D-5L Profile) | Health status will be assessed using the EQ-5D-5L. Participants report on mobility, self-care, usual activities, pain/discomfort and anxiety/depression on a scale from 1-5 (level of perceived problems) for each item. Responses are used to create a 5-digit number which will be used descriptively (11111 indicates no problems on any of the five dimensions whereas 55555 indicates extreme problems on all five dimensions). | 0, 3, 6, 15, 27-months |
| Change in health-related quality of life (EQ-5D-5L Level Sum Score) | Health status (EQ-5D-5L Level Sum Score) will be assessed with the EQ-5D-5L. Participants report on mobility, self-care, usual activities, pain/discomfort and anxiety/depression on a scale from 1-5 (level of perceived problems) for each item. The Level Sum Score uses the 5-digit profile to create a numeric score, with scores ranging from 5-25 (lower levels indicate lower levels of perceived problems). | 0, 3, 6, 15, 27-months |
| Change in health-related quality of life (EQ-5D-5L Visual Analogue Scale) | Health status will be assessed with the EQ-5D-5L visual analogue scale. Participants report on their health on a visual analogue scale from 0 (worst health) to 100 (best health). | 0, 3, 6, 15, 27-months |
| 3-months |
| Dose delivered | The amount of intervention delivered will be assessed via survey (designed in house). Lower scores indicate that a lower dose of the intervention was delivered than planned. | 3-months |
| Fidelity (survey) | Fidelity to planned delivery will be assessed via survey (designed in house). Higher scores indicate better adherence to planned delivery. | 3-months |
| Fidelity (interview/focus group) | Fidelity to planned delivery will be assessed via interview/focus group. | 3-months |
| Participant responsiveness (survey) | Program satisfaction will be assessed via participant survey (designed in house). Higher scores indicate higher participant satisfaction with the intervention. | 3-months |
| Participant responsiveness (interview) | Program satisfaction will be assessed via interview. | 3-months |
| Adaptation (survey) | Adaptation of the intervention and its delivery will be assessed via survey (designed in house). | 3-months |
| Adaptation (interview/focus group) | Adaptation of the intervention and its delivery will be assessed via interview/focus groups. | 3-months |
| Contextual factors influencing implementation (survey) | Contextual factors influencing implementation (community level factors, provider characteristics, characteristics of the innovation, the prevention delivery system, organizational capacity and the prevention support system) will be assessed via survey (designed in house). | 3-months |
| Contextual factors influencing implementation (interview/focus group) | Contextual factors influencing implementation (community level factors, provider characteristics, characteristics of the innovation, the prevention delivery system, organizational capacity and the prevention support system) will be assessed via interviews/focus groups. | 3-months |
| Cost | Program delivery costs will be recorded using a cost capture template. | 3-months |
| Change in Organizational Readiness (Organizational Readiness Rubric) | Organizational readiness (OR) will be assessed via survey (Organizational Readiness Rubric; ORR). The ORR comprises 14 items, each scored from 1-5. Higher mean scores indicate greater organizational readiness. | 0, 3-months |
| Change in Organizational Readiness (Readiness for Organizational Change Scale) | Organizational readiness (OR) will be assessed via survey (Readiness for Organizational Change Scale; ROCS). ROCS includes 25 items, each scored on a 5-point scale (1= strongly disagree to 5=strongly agree). Higher mean scores indicate greater organizational readiness for change. | 0, 3-months |
| Organizational Readiness (OR) (interview/focus group) | Organizational readiness (OR) will be assessed via interview. | 0, 3-months |
| Background | Lau, E. Y., Wandersman, A.H., & Pate, R. R. Factors Influencing Implementation of Youth Physical Activity Interventions: An Expert Perspective. Translational Journal of the ACSM: July 1, 2016 - Volume 1 - Issue 7 - p 60-70 doi: 10.1249/TJX.0000000000000006 |
| 16921004 | Background | Lubben J, Blozik E, Gillmann G, Iliffe S, von Renteln Kruse W, Beck JC, Stuck AE. Performance of an abbreviated version of the Lubben Social Network Scale among three European community-dwelling older adult populations. Gerontologist. 2006 Aug;46(4):503-13. doi: 10.1093/geront/46.4.503. |
| 19997030 | Background | Marshall AL, Miller YD, Burton NW, Brown WJ. Measuring total and domain-specific sitting: a study of reliability and validity. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2010 Jun;42(6):1094-102. doi: 10.1249/MSS.0b013e3181c5ec18. |
| 25680917 | Background | Rejeski WJ, Rushing J, Guralnik JM, Ip EH, King AC, Manini TM, Marsh AP, McDermott MM, Fielding RA, Newman AB, Tudor-Locke C, Gill TM; LIFE Study Group. The MAT-sf: identifying risk for major mobility disability. J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci. 2015 May;70(5):641-6. doi: 10.1093/gerona/glv003. Epub 2015 Feb 13. |
| 18772472 | Background | Simonsick EM, Newman AB, Visser M, Goodpaster B, Kritchevsky SB, Rubin S, Nevitt MC, Harris TB; Health, Aging and Body Composition Study. Mobility limitation in self-described well-functioning older adults: importance of endurance walk testing. J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci. 2008 Aug;63(8):841-7. doi: 10.1093/gerona/63.8.841. |
| 10109801 | Background | EuroQol Group. EuroQol--a new facility for the measurement of health-related quality of life. Health Policy. 1990 Dec;16(3):199-208. doi: 10.1016/0168-8510(90)90421-9. |
| Background | Veroff, J., Kulka, R. A., & Douvan, E. A. M. (1981). Mental health in America: patterns of help-seeking from, 1957 to 1976: patterns of help-seeking from 1957 to 1976. Basic Books. |
| Background | Warburton, D. E., Jamnik, V. K., Bredin, S. S., & Gledhill, N. (2011). The physical activity readiness questionnaire for everyone (PAR-Q+) and electronic physical activity readiness medical examination (ePARmed-X+). The Health & Fitness Journal of Canada, 4(2), 3-17. |
| Background | Ware, J. E. (1989). SF-36 health status questionnaire. Boston, MA: Institute for the Improvement of Medical Care and Health, New England Medical Center Hospital, Quality Quest Inc. |
| 20484314 | Background | Milton K, Bull FC, Bauman A. Reliability and validity testing of a single-item physical activity measure. Br J Sports Med. 2011 Mar;45(3):203-8. doi: 10.1136/bjsm.2009.068395. Epub 2010 May 19. |
| Background | Holt, D.T., Armenakis, A.A., Feild, H.S., & Harris, S.G. Readiness for Organizational Change: the systematic development of a scale. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science. 2007; 43(2): 232-255. https://doi.org/10.1177/0021886306295295 |
| Background | Vancouver Coastal Health, Fraser Health, University of British Columbia. My Health My Community Survey. 2014. https://myhealthmycommunity.org/ |
| 41233872 | Derived | Szewczyk Z, Macdonald HM, Pinheiro MB, Nettlefold L, Sims Gould J, McKay HA. Are costs optimized as scale-up of Choose to Move-an effective health-promoting intervention for older adults-proceeds? Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act. 2025 Nov 13;22(1):144. doi: 10.1186/s12966-025-01826-4. |
| 39695643 | Derived | Nettlefold L, Macdonald HM, Sims Gould J, Bauman A, Szewczyk Z, McKay HA. Does optimizing Choose to Move - a health-promoting program for older adults - enhance scalability, program implementation and effectiveness? Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act. 2024 Dec 18;21(1):140. doi: 10.1186/s12966-024-01649-9. |
| 37536680 | Derived | Gray SM, Nettlefold L, Mackey D, Gould JS, McKay HA. Feasibility of a Virtual Health-Promoting Intervention (Choose to Move) for Older Adults: A Rapid Adaptation in Response to COVID-19. J Aging Phys Act. 2023 Aug 3;31(6):1003-1015. doi: 10.1123/japa.2023-0011. Print 2023 Dec 1. |