Background: Physical activity, a high-frequency health behavior, varies by where children live, learn, and play. Children accumulate physical activity in adult-led in-school and out-of-school settings. Youth sport is a potential setting for physical activity, but there are differences in youth sport participation based on age, sex, and socioeconomic status. There is a gap in understanding demographic influences on youth sport participation and how these factors interact to influence physical activity. This study examines influences of grade, sex, and family income on youth sport participation and these factors and youth sport participation on moderate-to-vigorous physical activity of children in rural communities. Methods: Children (n = 418 3rd–6th graders) living in two rural communities completed the online Youth Activity Profile as part of Wellscapes, a type 3 hybrid implementation-effectiveness community randomized trial. Mixed models with community as a random effect examined main effects and interactions of grade, sex, and family income on youth sport participation and these factors and youth sport participation on moderate-to-vigorous physical activity. Results: About 80% of children engaged in youth sport, and full-pay lunch students were almost four times more likely to have youth sport participation than students with free/reduced lunch (OR = 3.91, 95% CI = 1.95, 7.8). Females and 6th graders (p < 0.05) had lower physical activity than comparison groups. Males with higher family income had greater physical activity; females with higher family income had less physical activity. For 6th graders, high family income had less effect on physical activity than similar 3rd-5th graders (p < 0.01). Conclusions: While a fairly high percentage of children participate in youth sports, there are disparities in rural communities on youth sport participation and physical activity outcomes based on age, sex, and family income.

JMIR Human Factors - a leading peer-reviewed ehealth journal

Patient-Centered Innovations, Education and Technology for Cancer Care and Cancer Research

Using a participatory approach, this multi-method case study compared bicyclists’ perceptions and physical indicators of bikeability on a college campus. Student focus groups discussed campus bikeability and mapped and graded common bicycle routes. Trained students conducted environmental audits with bicycle counts. In discussions, students expressed concerns about safe bicycle riding on campus, especially during peak times. Congestion with pedestrians, other bicyclists, and skateboarders created the potential for crashes. Five major routes were identified with map scores ranging from 21.4% to 70%. Audit scores ranged from 82.5% to 86.7%. Bicycle counts varied by time of day and ranged from 11 to 91 bicycles. Student perceptions of bikeability were poorer than objective assessments of routes. The audit tool did not differentiate enough between routes and did not capture conflict potential accurately. Specification is needed on audit tools to capture the potential for conflict between bicycling and other forms of active transport—especially in unique settings like college campuses. Campuses that have well-marked paths for pedestrians, bicyclists, and motor vehicles and that communicate the importance and ease of bicycling may see the most overall success when promoting active transport options.

Mini-grants are an increasingly common tool for engaging communities in evidence-based interventions (EBI) for promoting public health. This paper describes efforts by four Centers for Disease Control and Prevention/National Cancer Institute-funded Cancer Prevention and Control Research Networks to design and implement mini-grant programs to disseminate EBIs for cancer prevention and control. This paper describes source of EBI, funding levels, selection criteria, timeframe, number and size of grants, types of organizations funded, selected accomplishments, training and technical assistance (TA), and evaluation topics/methods. Grant size ranged from $1,000–10,000 (median=$6,250). This mini-grant opportunity was characterized by its emphasis on training and TA for evidence-based programming and dissemination of interventions from NCI’s Research Tested Intervention Programs and CDC’s Community Guide. All projects had an evaluation component although they varied in scope. Mini-grant processes described can serve as a model for organizations such as state health departments working to bridge the gap between research and practice.