Перегляд вихідного коду сторінки The 10 Most Asked Questions Regarding PRDX5

3% vs. 7.2% p=0.09). The average number of reported exercise sessions (2.76 vs. 2.49; p=0.03) was also significantly higher at the first follow-up than at baseline, but the proportion of respondents using the park at least once per week was no different, nor were the percentage of new users and number of exercise sessions at the second follow-up (data not shown). Comparing all respondents in intervention parks with those from comparison parks confirmed that more FZ park users reported being new users in both the past month (p[http://www.selleckchem.com/autophagy.html http://www.selleckchem.com/autophagy.html] of park use (p[http://www.selleckchem.com/products/Bafetinib.html see more] a net gain of 1,909 METs in the 12 parks or 159 METs per park. This is equivalent to 52,311 additional METs/year at a cost of 10.5 cents/MET. This estimate includes the declines in METs in five parks and the increases in METs in seven of the 12 parks. Using the increase of 685 METs per park calculated in comparison to energy changes at non-FZ parks, the cost effectiveness is 2.4 cents/MET; however, the increase in METs was not statistically significant. Installing Fitness Zone equipment was associated with absolute increases in park use in about half the FZ parks. Additionally, their installation appears to have increased the level of moderate to vigorous physical activity in the park at a very favorable cost-effective ratio, (10.5 cents/MET). However, these findings do not constitute strong evidence of effectiveness, since the analysis using controls was not statistically significant. This could be due to insufficient power with a sample of only 20 parks, or because there was really no difference between control and intervention parks. The better cost-effectiveness ratio seen with the control park analysis is because it accounts for the overall decline in the use of comparison parks. However, the significant increase in reported FZ park use lends credence to the possibility that Fitness Zones may indeed be having an impact. Based upon studies that indicate investments to increase physical activity are cost [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PRDX5 PRDX5] effective at less than 50 cents/MET (Wu et al., 2011), the cost-effectiveness ratio of 10.5 cents/MET or less ranks this intervention very highly, especially considering secular trends indicating overall declines in usership across all the parks in general. Park management practices were not stagnant during the time periods when the Fitness Zones were installed, so changes in park usage cannot be attributed solely to the presence or absence of Fitness Zones. First, the installations occurred during a recession, a time when park budgets declined, and changes in programming and staffing could have affected park attendance.