The Promoting Active Communities Program: improvement of Michigan's self-assessment tool.

BACKGROUND: This project updated and improved the Promoting Active Communities Program (PAC), a Web-based assessment that enables communities to scrutinize their programs, policies, and environments related to physical activity, generating ideas and community commitment for improvements. METHODS: A literature review, focus groups, and expert review guided PAC improvements. RESULTS: Over 150 articles and audit measures in the fields of transportation, public health, and urban planning were reviewed. Indicators were identified, categorized, and evaluated for use in the PAC. Focus-group participants communicated motivations, processes, and obstacles for completing the PAC and developing an action plan. Participants requested technical information to guide them in achieving active-living environments. CONCLUSIONS: Information gathered was used to improve the PAC Web site. A technical assistance document, Design Guidelines for Active Michigan Communities, was created to aid communities in creating active-living environments. The new PAC and Design Guidelines are available for public use at www.mihealthtools.org/communities.

Indicators of activity-friendly communities: an evidence-based consensus process.

BACKGROUND: Regular physical activity, even at modest intensities, is associated with many health benefits. Most Americans, however, do not engage in the recommended levels. As practitioners seek ways to increase population rates of physical activity, interventions and advocacy efforts are being targeted to the community level. Yet, advocates, community leaders, and researchers lack the tools needed to assess local barriers to and opportunities for more active, healthy lifestyles. Investigators used a systematic review process to identify key indicators of activity-friendly communities that can assess and improve opportunities for regular physical activity. METHODS: Investigators conducted a comprehensive literature review of both peer-reviewed literature and fugitive information (e.g., reports and websites) to generate an initial list of indicators for review (n=230). The review included a three-tiered, modified Delphi consensus-development process that incorporated input of international, national, state, and local researchers and practitioners from academic institutions, federal and state government agencies, nonprofit organizations, and funding agencies in public health, transportation, urban planning, parks and recreation, and public policy. RESULTS: Ten promising indicators of activity-friendly communities were identified: land use environment, access to exercise facilities, transportation environment, aesthetics, travel patterns, social environment, land use economics, transportation economics, institutional and organizational policies, and promotion. CONCLUSIONS: Collaborative, multidisciplinary approaches are underway to test, refine, and expand this initial list of indicators and to develop measures that communities, community leaders, and policymakers can use to design more activity-friendly community environments.

Proportion of trips made by walking: estimating a state-level baseline for Healthy People 2010 Objective 22-14.

PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to investigate the proportion of short trips made by walking among Michigan adults and barriers to walking for transportation. METHODS: Four questions on walking for transportation were asked of 3808 respondents to the Michigan Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System (BRFSS) between January and December 2001. RESULTS: Three quarters (74.3%) of Michigan adults were estimated to have made at least one short trip (.25-1 mile) in the previous week; however, only 36.2% of them walked even one of these trips. The mean proportion of short trips walked was 21.4%; less than 10% of all respondents walked five or more trips per week. DISCUSSION: Our results provide a Michigan-specific baseline for Healthy People 2010 Objective 22-14 (i.e., increase the proportion of trips made by walking) and suggest the potential for these questions to be used to monitor active transportation via the BRFSS.