Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34293156›Full record

Trial reportTranslational behavioral medicine2021

Engaging older adults as advocates for age-friendly, walkable communities: The Senior Change Makers Pilot Study.

Christina M Patch, Terry L Conway, Jacqueline Kerr, Elva M Arredondo, Susan Levy, Chad Spoon, Katie J Butte, Deepa Sannidhi, Rachel A Millstein, Danielle Glorioso and 2 more

Abstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in Translational behavioral medicine, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
14citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

14 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Journal of community practice · 2026
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Healthcare Professionals' Perceptions of Loneliness amongst Older Adults: A Qualitative Study.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2021
    Article
  14. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

12 authors.

Christina M PatchUniversity of California, San Diego, CA, USA.ORCID 0000-0003-0947-7115
Terry L ConwayUniversity of California, San Diego, CA, USA.
Jacqueline KerrUniversity of California, San Diego, CA, USA.
Elva M ArredondoSan Diego State University, San Diego, CA, USA.
Susan LevySan Diego State University, San Diego, CA, USA.
Chad SpoonUniversity of California, San Diego, CA, USA.
Katie J ButteSeattle Pacific University, Seattle, WA, USA.
Deepa SannidhiUniversity of California, San Diego, CA, USA.
Rachel A MillsteinMassachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA.
Danielle GloriosoUniversity of California, San Diego, CA, USA.
Dilip V JesteUniversity of California, San Diego, CA, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-1161-7351
James F SallisUniversity of California, San Diego, CA, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

As the U.S. population ages, communities must adapt to help older adults thrive. Built environment features, like safe sidewalks and crosswalks, provide the foundation for age- and physical activity-friendly communities. Controlled studies are needed to evaluate advocacy training programs that instruct and support seniors to advocate for more walkable neighborhoods. The Senior Change Makers Pilot Study evaluated an advocacy program that taught seniors to evaluate pedestrian environments using the validated MAPS-Mini audit tool, identify barriers, and advocate for improvements. Participants (n = 50) were recruited from four low-income senior housing sites in San Diego, CA, which were randomly assigned to an 8-week advocacy program or physical activity (PA) comparison intervention. Evaluation included surveys, accelerometers to assess PA, and direct observation. Primary outcomes were seniors' advocacy confidence and skills. Main analyses used repeated measures ANOVAs. Seniors in the advocacy condition (n = 17) increased their advocacy outcome efficacy (p = .03) and knowledge of resources (p = .04) more than seniors in the PA condition (n = 33). Most seniors in the advocacy condition completed a street audit (84%), submitted an advocacy request (79%), or made an advocacy presentation to city staff (58%). Environmental changes included repairs to sidewalks and crosswalks. City staff approved requests for lighting, curb cuts, and crosswalk markings. Seniors' accelerometer-measured PA did not significantly increase, but self-reported transportation activity increased in the PA condition (p = .04). This study showed the potential of advocacy training to empower seniors to make communities more age- and activity-friendly.

Indexed as

Environment DesignWalkingAgedHumansPilot ProjectsResidence CharacteristicsTransportationAge-friendlyBuilt environmentExerciseOlder adultPolicyWalkabilityWalking

Identifiers

PMID34293156
PMCPMC8442566

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.