A Tale of 3 Asian Cities: How is Primary Care Responding to COVID-19 in Hong Kong, Singapore, and Beijing.

Hong Kong, Singapore, and Beijing have some of the highest numbers of international arrivals and densest living spaces globally, yet these cities have reported low numbers of deaths amid the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) outbreak. Primary care has played different roles in each of the health systems in combatting the pandemic. Both Hong Kong and Singapore have a 2-tiered health system with the majority of primary care provided in the private sector. The primary care system in Beijing consists of community health facilities, township health centers, and village clinics. The role of primary care in Hong Kong includes using the public primary care clinics as part of an enhanced surveillance program together with accident and emergency departments, as well as triaging patients with suspected infection to hospitals. Singapore's response to COVID-19 has included close cooperation between redeveloped polyclinics and private and public health preparedness clinics to provide screening with swab tests for suspected cases in the primary care setting. Beijing's unique response has consisted of using online platforms for general practitioners to facilitate monitoring among community residents, as well as public health education and a mobilized pharmacy refill program to reduce risk of transmission. Established challenges, however, include shortages of personal protective equipment and the heavy workload for health care staff. Regardless, all 3 cities have demonstrated enhanced preparedness since experiencing the severe acute respiratory syndrome epidemic, and the responses of their primary care systems therefore may offer learning points for other countries during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Activity in nature mediates a park prescription intervention's effects on physical activity, park use and quality of life: a mixed-methods process evaluation.

BACKGROUND: This process evaluation explored the implementation and mechanisms of impact of a Park Prescription Intervention trial (PPI), including the effects of hypothesised mediators (motivation, social support, recreational physical activity [PA], park use and park PA) on trial outcomes. METHODS: Participants from the community were randomly allocated to intervention (n = 80) or control (n = 80) group. The intervention included baseline counselling, a prescription of exercise in parks, materials, three-month follow-up counselling and 26 weekly group exercise sessions in parks. Process evaluation indicators were assessed at three- and six-months. Implementation indicators included participation rates in intervention components and survey questions plus focus group discussions (FGDs) to understand which components participants valued. FGDs further assessed barriers and facilitators to intervention participation. To explore mechanisms of impact, linear regression was used to compare objectively measured PA between quantiles of group exercise participation. Structural equation modelling (SEM) explored hypothesised mediation of the significant intervention effects. Framework analysis was conducted for FGDs. RESULTS: Participants were middle-aged (mean 51, SD ± 6.3 years), predominantly female (79%) and of Chinese ethnicity (81%). All intervention participants received baseline counselling, the park prescription and materials, whilst 94% received the follow-up counselling. Mean minutes of moderate-to-vigorous PA/week (95% CI) differed by group exercise participation (p = 0.018): 0% participation (n = 18) 128.3 (69.3, 187.2) minutes, > 0-35.9% participation (n = 18) 100.3 (36.9, 163.6) minutes, > 35.9-67.9% participation (n = 17) 50.5 (- 4.9, 105.9) minutes and > 67.9% participation (n = 18) 177.4 (122.0, 232.8) minutes. Park PA at three-months had significant mediating effects (95% CI) on recreational PA 26.50 (6.65, 49.37) minutes/week, park use 185.38 (45.40, 353.74) minutes/month, park PA/month 165.48 (33.14, 334.16) minutes and psychological quality of life score 1.25 (0.19, 2.69) at six-months. Prioritising time with family and preferences for unstructured activities were barriers to intervention participation. Human interaction via follow-up or group exercise were facilitators. CONCLUSION: This process evaluation showed park PA consistently mediated effects of the PPI, suggesting activity in parks was a mechanism of its effects. To optimise effectiveness, participants' preference for prioritising time with family through family involvement and tailoring the intervention to participants' preferences for structured or unstructured PA could be considered in future studies. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02615392 , 26 November 2015.

Effectiveness of prescribing physical activity in parks to improve health and wellbeing - the park prescription randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Programs promoting population health through physical activity (PA) and exposure to nature are popular, but few have been evaluated in randomized-controlled trials (RCTs). OBJECTIVE: To investigate the effectiveness of a park prescription intervention (PPI) for improving total moderate-to-vigorous PA (MVPA), other PA related behaviors, quality of life (QoL) and cardio-metabolic health among adults. METHODS: Healthy individuals aged 40 to 65 years were recruited through community health screenings and randomly assigned to 1) PPI: face-to-face Park Prescription + invitation to weekly exercise sessions in parks, or 2) control: standard PA materials. After the six-month intervention, participants completed accelerometer assessments, questionnaires on health behaviors and QoL, and health screenings. Independent sample t-tests were used to compare outcomes between groups, with secondary analysis adjusted for co-variates via multiple linear regression. A p-value <0.05 was considered statistically significant. RESULTS: Eighty participants were allocated to each group. Participants with mean age of 51.1 (Standard Deviation: 6.3) years were predominantly female (79%) and of Chinese ethnicity (81%). Participation in the group exercise started at 48% and declined to 24% by week 26. At six-months, 145 (91%) participants attended health screenings for outcome measure collection, and 126 (79%) provided valid accelerometer data. Time spent in MVPA favored the PPI group but this difference was not statistically significant (4.4 (- 43.8, 52.7) minutes/week; when removing 2 extreme outliers 26.8 (- 9.7, 63.4) minutes/week). Time spent in parks (147.5 (2.1, 292.9) minutes/month), PA in parks (192.5 (59.5, 325.5) minutes/month), and recreational PA (48.7 (1.4, 96.0) minutes/week) were significantly greater in the PPI group. PPI also significantly improved psychological QoL (4.0 (0.0, 8.0). DISCUSSION: PPI improved park use, PA in parks, recreational PA, and psychological QoL but not total MVPA. Future RCTs' are warranted to investigate PPI in different target populations and to provide further evidence for improvements in health outcomes. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02615392, 26 November 2015.

The Park Prescription Study: Development of a community-based physical activity intervention for a multi-ethnic Asian population.

This mixed-methods study aims to inform the development of a 'Park Prescription' intervention, including face-to-face counseling on physical activity and park use and providing weekly structured exercise sessions in the park to promote physical activity. Participants aged 40-65 years were recruited from regional health screening events in Singapore where they completed a questionnaire (N = 97) and consented to focus group (FG) participation (N = 16). The questionnaire assessed current park use, and the type, duration, and intensity of park-based activities that would be of interest. FGs explored the barriers and facilitators of physical activity (in parks). Short interviews (N = 16) with 'doers', i.e., people already engaging in park-based physical activity, identified motivational factors and ways to overcome common barriers. Participants acknowledged the health benefits of parks and valued them because of their pleasant landscapes, greenery and facilities. However, few participants engaged in physical activity at the parks, because they were too busy or too tired. Participants mostly indicated doing informal activities, such as walking, cycling or playing traditional Asian games when using the parks for exercise. A variety of low-to-moderate intensity park-based activities such as walking, cycling or aerobics were of interest to participants who expressed the willingness to engage in structured exercise sessions on weekday evenings or weekend mornings. Strategies to increase physical activity in parks included: encourage planning, create social support, identify alternatives for bad weather, improve proximity/accessibility to parks and park safety. The effectiveness of the Park Prescription intervention in promoting physical activity, park use, as well as physical and mental well-being will be tested in a one-year Randomized Controlled Trial.

Prescribing Physical Activity in Parks to Improve Health and Wellbeing: Protocol of the Park Prescription Randomized Controlled Trial.

Previous studies in primary care settings showed that brief advice prescribing physical activity for inactive patients could be an effective way to promote physical activity. Park prescription interventions confer health benefits associated with exposure to nature and increased physical activity by recommending park use specifically to increase physical activity in parks. The purpose of this trial is to evaluate the effectiveness of a park prescription intervention for increasing time spent in moderate-to-vigorous physical activity (MVPA) assessed by accelerometry. Middle-aged Singaporeans who were insufficiently active and who met health screening criteria were recruited via existing community health screening programs and allocated to one of two groups. Intervention participants received a prescription of physical activity in parks, an information pack, access to a weekly group exercise program in parks and telephone counselling (n = 80). Control participants received physical activity materials (n = 80). The primary outcome (mean difference between both groups in time spent in MVPA minutes per week measured by accelerometer) will be assessed at six months. Secondary outcomes include self-reported health behaviors, self-reported mental wellbeing and objectively-measured physical health. This is the first randomized controlled trial investigating the effectiveness of a park prescription intervention for increasing health-enhancing MVPA.