University of British Columbia| School of Kinesiology KIN 464

University of British Columbia|
School of Kinesiology
KIN 464 – Health Promotion and Physical Activity
Course Outline: January 7 – April 8, 2014
Course Instructor:
Lori Bowie ([email protected])
Teaching Assistants:
Ben Sylvester ([email protected])
Devra Waldman ([email protected])
9:30-11:00am, Tuesday/Thursday, Woodward 6
Course Blog:
Calendar description:
Current perspectives on community health promotion and health education, design and implementation of
health promotion strategies in a variety of arenas, particularly health promotion/education strategies aimed at
encouraging physical activity.
Prerequisite: Third-year standing
Learning objectives:
1. To gain a critical understanding of the issues, debates, theories, and controversies in the literature on health
and physical activity promotion (assessment = quizzes).
2. To critically assess how health and/or physical activity promotion is portrayed in the electronic media
(assessment = media analysis).
3. To apply key concepts and community health promotion practices to a specific case that includes a policy
influence component (assessment = community health mapping assignment).
4. To create a ‘community of practice’ in class (assessment = community health mapping assignment, peer
Reading Schedule:
All readings are available online through the UBC library or on the links provided. Readings marked with an *
will assist with the community health mapping assignment, depending on the case your group is assigned.
NOTE: If changes to the readings are made, a final version of the course outline will be posted on the class blog
Jan 16, 2014 replacing any earlier versions of the reading schedule. Although content covered at each class
may vary from the course outline, the media assignment schedule is fixed. Lori will notify you in class which
readings and lecture material are covered by each quiz.
Week 1 – Jan 7 & 9 Introduction to Health Promotion and why create a ‘community of practice’ in class?
Baum, F. (2008). The commission on the social determinants of health: Reinventing health promotion for the twenty-first
century? Critical Public Health, 18(4): 457-466.
Rootman, I., Dupéré, S., Pederson, A., & O'Neill, M. (2012). Health Promotion in Canada: Critical
Perspectives on Practice. Canadian Scholars’ Press. Read Chapter 2: p. 18-32
World Health Organization. (1986). Ottawa charter for health promotion. Available online at:
Week 2 - Jan 14 & 16 How has health promotion evolved in Canada? What is being promoted? What are the
proposed professional competencies for health promotion practitioners?
Community Tool Box. Section 3. Healthy Cities/Healthy Communities
Green, J. (2008). Health education – the case for rehabilitation. Critical Public Health, 18(4): 447-456.
Rootman, I., Dupéré, S., Pederson, A., & O'Neill, M. (2012). Health Promotion in Canada: Critical Perspectives on
Practice. Canadian Scholars’ Press. Read Chapter 1: p. 3-17
Week 3 - Jan 21 & 23 Why are theories of health and physical activity promotion important but problematic?
Crosby, R., & Noar, S. M. (2010). Theory development in health promotion: are we there yet?. Journal of behavioral
medicine, 33(4), 259-263.
*King, A.C., Stokols, D., Talen, E., Brassington, G.S. & Killingsworth, R. (2002). Theoretical approaches to the
promotion of physical activity: Forging a transdisciplinary paradigm. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 23(2):
Mikkonen, J., & Raphael, D. (2010). Social Determinants of Health: The Canadian Facts. Toronto: York University
School of Health Policy and Management.
Week 4 - Jan 28 & 30 What are the promises and challenges of community-based approaches? Why is there
growing interest in participatory approaches to research to inform health and physical activity promotion?
*Blodgett, A.T., Schinke, R.J., Peltier, D., Fisher, L.A., Watson, J. & Wabano, M.J. (2011). May the circle be unbroken:
The research recommendations of aboriginal community members engaged in participatory action research with
university academics, Journal of Sport and Social Issues, 35(3): 262-283.
*Dennis, S.F., Gaulocher, S., Capriano, R.M., & Brown, D. (2009). Participatory photo mapping (PPM): Exploring an
integrated method for health and place research with young people. Health & Place, 15: 466-473.
*Frisby, W. & Hoeber, L. (2002). Factors affecting the uptake of community recreation as health promotion for women on
low incomes. Canadian Journal of Public Health, 93(2): 129-133.
Week 5 – Feb 4 & 6 How does the built environment affect health and physical activity?
*Latham, J., & Moffat, T. (2007). Determinants of variation in food cost and availability in two socioeconomically
contrasting neighbourhoods of Hamilton Ontario, Canada. Health & Place, 13(1): 273-282.
*Masuda, J. R., Teelucksingh, C., Zupancic, T., Crabtree, A., Haber, R., Skinner, E., Poland, B., Frankish,J. & Fridell, M.
(2012). Out of our inner city backyards: Re-scaling urban environmental health inequity assessment. Social Science &
Medicine,75(7), 1244-1253.
*Sallis, J.F., Floyd, M.F., Rodriguez, D.A., & Saelens, B.E. (2012). Role of built environments in physical activity,
obesity and cardiovascular disease. Circulation, 125: 729-737.
Week 6 – Feb 11 & 13 How can environmental scans address health disparities?
First Call BC. (2013). 2013 Child Poverty Report Card.
*Ponic, P., Nanjijuma, R., Pederson, A, Poole, N. & Scott, J. (2011). Physical Activity for Marginalized Women in British
Columbia: A Discussion Paper, BC Centre of Excellence for Women’s Health, Vancouver,
Seabrook, J. A., & Avison, W. R. (2012). Socioeconomic status and cumulative disadvantage processes across
the life course: Implications for health outcomes. Canadian Review of Sociology/Revue canadienne de
sociologie,49(1), 50-68.
Week 7 Feb 17 – 21
Reading Break
Week 8 Feb 25 & 27 How can environmental scans address health disparities (con’t)?
*Bingham, P.B. (2009). Physical activity for mental health: Literature review. Minding our Bodies, Canadian Mental
Health Association, Ottawa, ON.
*Cohen, M., Tate, J., & Baumbusch, J. (2009). An uncertain future for seniors: BC’s restructuring of home and
community health care 2001-2008. (Read - Summary Report only), Ottawa: Canadian Centre for Policy
*Khander, E. & Koch, A. (2011). The Global City: Newcomer Health in Toronto. (Read the Executive Summary p. 3-9,
other sections maybe relevant depending on your community mapping case study), Toronto Public Health and
Access Alliance Multicultural Health and Service Community.
Week 9 – March 4 & 6 What role does the media and social marketing play in health and physical activity
Finlay, S.J. & Faulkner, G. (2005). Physical activity promotion through the mass media: Inception, production,
transmission and consumption. Preventive Medicine, 40:121-130.
Li, J. S., Barnett, T. A., Goodman, E., Wasserman, R. C., & Kemper, A. R. (2013). Approaches to the Prevention and
Management of Childhood Obesity: The Role of Social Networks and the Use of Social Media and Related Electronic
Technologies A Scientific Statement From the American Heart Association. Circulation, 127(2), 260-267.
Vandelanotte C, Spathonis KM, Eakin EG, Owen N. (2007). Website-delivered physical activity interventions a review of
the literature. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 33(1): 54-64.
Week 10 – Mar 11 & 13
What’s happening in health and physical activity promotion internationally?
Jeanes, R. (2013). Educating through sport? Examining HIV/AIDS education and sport-for-development through the
perspectives of Zambian young people.Sport, Education and Society, 18(3), 388-406. Kidd, B. (2008). A New Social
Movement: Sport for development and peace. Sport in Society, 11(4), 370-380.
Kidd, B. (2008). A new social movement: Sport for development and peace.Sport in society, 11(4), 370-380.
Sanders, D., Stern, R., Struthers, P., Ngulube, T.J., & Onya, H. (2008). What is needed for health promotion in Africa:
Band-aid, live aid or real change? Critical Public Health, 18(4) 509-519.
Week 11 – March 18 & 20 How does policy figure into health and physical activity promotion?
Alvaro, C., Jackson, L. A., Kirk, S., McHugh, T. L., Hughes, J., Chircop, A., & Lyons, R. F. (2011). Moving Canadian
governmental policies beyond a focus on individual lifestyle: some insights from complexity and critical theories. Health
Promotion International, 26(1), 91-99.
Bercovitz, K.L. (2000). A critical analysis of Canada’s ‘Active Living’: Science or politics? Critical Public Health, 10(1):
Freiler, A., Muntaner, C., Shankardass, K., Mah, C. L., Molnar, A., Renahy, E., & O'Campo, P. (2013). Glossary for the
implementation of Health in All Policies (HiAP). Journal of epidemiology and community health, 67(12), 1068-1072.
Week 12 – March 25 & 27 How should health and physical activity promotion initiatives be evaluated?
Berkowitz, J.M., Huhman, M., Heitzler, C. Potter, L.D., Nolin, M.J., Banspach, W. (2008). Overview of formative,
process, and outcome evaluation methods used in the VERB Campaign. American Journal of Preventive Medicine,
34(6S): S222-S229.
Kahn, E.B., Ramsey, L.T., Brownson, R.C., Heath, G.W., Howze, E.H., Powell, K.E., et al. (2002). The effectiveness of
interventions to increase physical activity. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 22(4): S73-S107. (Read pages 7392)
Nitsch, M., Waldherr, K., Denk, E., Griebler, U., Marent, B., & Forster, R. (2013). Participation by different stakeholders
in participatory evaluation of health promotion: a literature review. Evaluation and program planning.
Week 13 – April 1 & 3 Where to from here?
Hallal, P. C., Andersen, L. B., Bull, F. C., Guthold, R., Haskell, W., & Ekelund, U. (2012). Global physical activity levels:
surveillance progress, pitfalls, and prospects. The Lancet.
King, A.C., Bauman, A., Abrams, D.B. (2002). Forging transdisciplinary bridges to meet the physical inactivity challenge
in the 21st century. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 23(2S), S104-S106.
Laverack, G. & Mohammadi, N.K. (2011). What remains for the future: strengthening community actions to become an
integral part of health promotion practice. Health Promotion International, 26(S2): ii258-262.
Week 14 – April 8
Final Quiz and Peer Evaluation
Course Evaluation:
Note: Group participation is mandatory.
Health Promotion Media Analysis
4 Quizzes (non-cumulative)
Percentage of Final Grade
10% x 4 = 40%
Due Dates
9:30am - See table below
Tuesday, Jan 28
Tuesday, Feb 25
Tuesday, March 18
Tuesday, April 8
Community Health Mapping – Preliminary
Evidence-Based Report
Community Health Mapping – Final Briefing
5 % group mark for the introduction
9:30am March 6
20% individual mark for each task (see Submit a group pdf by email to
Lori and provide one hard copy in
15% group mark
9:30am March 27
Community Health Mapping – Peer
Submit a group pdf by email to
Lori and provide one hard copy in
April 8, must be in class
NOTE: Mapping Project Total 50%
1. Health Promotion Media Analysis (10%, Late penalty is 2% per day)
The purpose of this assignment is to sensitize you to the factors addressed or neglected in electronic physical activity and
health promotion materials and campaigns. It also allows you to contribute to course content because a few of the videos
will be selected to be shown in class and it would be great if you were there during that week to informally share your
video analysis. Note that it is likely the same video will selected by more than one student per week or on different
weeks (e.g., we are not expecting the class to come up with 140 different videos). Using the same video is not a
problem as long as you independently justify how it connects to the topic and readings for your assigned
week. *Note that if your media assignment is due the same day as another assignment, it is highly recommended
that you hand it in early. This should not be a problem as students will be handing their media analyses in from
January onward. Submit a pdf by email to Lori and provide one hard copy in class on the due date. Be sure to provide
the name of the video and the link.
Choose one YouTube (or other similar video sharing site) video of 2-5 minutes duration that is related to the weekly
readings you are assigned in the table below. These videos should be posted by either: i) a credible health and/or physical
activity organization such as the Alberta Centre for Active Living, the World Health Organization (WHO), etc. or ii) you
will be required to make a case for selecting a video that is not from a credible source (e.g. it might illustrate how the
social media can adversely affect health). Ensure that you provide the internet link to view your video.
You will be provided the rubric on the course blog to give you an idea of what an 'excellent' assignment looks like.
Your last name starts with:
Find a video relating to the
readings for:
Your media analysis (pdf by email to
Lori and hard copy handed in at class)
is due 9:30am on:
A & B
Week 4
Jan 23
E, F, G & H
I, J & K
Week 5
Week 6
Week 7
Jan 30
Feb 6
Feb 13
Week 9
Feb 27
N, O, P & Q
Week 10
March 6
Week 11
March 13
T, U, V & W
X, Y & Z
Week 12
Week 13
March 20
March 27
2. Quizzes (4 x 10% each) Quizzes (4 x 10% each)
Four non-cumulative pop quizzes on the readings and lectures will be held in class during the term. Students are
encouraged to suggest quiz questions on the Quiz Question Tab on the class blog. You must be in class on the
day of the quiz to receive a mark unless there is a valid written excuse. In that case, contact the instructor via
email to arrange an alternative time to write the quiz.
Quiz Dates:
Tuesdays: Jan 28, Feb 25, Mar 18, Apr 8.
3. Community Health Mapping Assignment (50%, Late penalty is 5% per day)
Preliminary Evidence Based Report:
You will be provided the rubric on the course blog to give you an idea of what an 'excellent' assignment looks
The purpose of this assignment is to become sensitive to how the neighborhood one lives in affects health status
and opportunities for health promoting activity, and to consider recommendations for change to health policy
makers and politicians. Assume that your group are staff working for Vancouver Coastal Health Authority.
Your group will be given a composite case study family and you will choose a low-income neighborhood where
this family hypothetically lives in the VCHA Region. It is recommended that you visit the area as a group
(or at least in pairs) at least twice, as you will notice more each time. There will be a Preliminary EvidenceBased Report (due March 6) with a group introduction for 5%, and four individual components worth 20%
each. Group participation is mandatory. Group members are encouraged to create a ‘community of practice’
whereby they help and support one another in all phases of the project. The Final Briefing Report (15%, due
March 27) includes recommendations aimed at healthy policy makers and politicians and is a 15% group mark.
Finally, group members will evaluate each other’s contribution to the overall project (excluding their own),
10% peer evaluation in class on April 8.
A. Choose a region that is accessible to your group.
Using census data, select a lower income area that is relatively small (e.g., 15 minute walking radius using a
particular intersection or place like a grocery store or school as a centre point will make this project more
manageable). Even wealthy neighborhoods have low income housing areas/units that are usually located near
food banks so this can be used as a justification even when overall census data suggests an neighborhood is not
low income.
B. Given the readings marked with * and your case study, your group will decide on an inventory of up to 12
characteristics of the built environment that all of you will observe by walking in a 15 minute walking radius
and mapping the area (taking field notes, diagrams, and photos will assist with the fieldwork, but note that
photos cannot include people’s faces for privacy reasons). Also note that you are not to interview or do
surveys with people, but you can ask service providers for information that any member of the public could ask
(e.g., for brochures, program information, prices, etc.). An example inventory to get you started appears at the
website below, but you should demonstrate creativity in developing one that specifically applies to your case
study, the chosen neighborhood, and other sources that your group is drawing upon. Being actively involved in
inventory development will inform all 4 tasks and will result in a more coherent group report.
C. Review the individual tasks listed below and assign a group member for each task. When there are only 3
group members, you must complete task 1) and task 2), and choose between task 3) or task 4), or do half of
task 3) and half of task 4. Let us know what your choice was in the introductions of both reports.
Task 1) Identify and analyze 6 pieces demographic characteristics (including socioeconomic/income and health
status) and how they have been changing given your case and the low-income neighborhood chosen. You can
access this information using the City of Vancouver's (search census data and neighborhood profiles), Statistics
Canada (search health), and other reports (e.g., The United Way's Report on Vulnerable Seniors contain
demographic and other information that will be helpful for groups with case studies that include family
members over age 65. Many other reports like these exist). The key aspect of this task is analysis. Simply
regurgitating, repeating or listing demographic data is not acceptable. You must justify how the area is lowincome and indicate why you think a particular piece of information is important. For example, if you state that
there are more women than men in the region you are looking at, you must discuss why this is pertinent to
health and physical activity, and your particular case study. This discussion must draw on relevant literature
(including selected readings from class and additional relevant material you have found). This task should
complement the other tasks to make the report coherent, so group collaboration is crucial.
Task 2) Analyze and map up to 12 characteristics of the built environment in your group's inventory that do or
do not promote health and physical activity in the chosen neighborhood, given your case and your observations.
For example, the availability of community centres could be one characteristic in the inventory, and if there are
two of them, they would be listed as sub-items under that heading. If less than 12 characteristics are chosen that
should be briefly justified. This requires fieldwork, as you will not be able to assess the condition of a
playground, for instance, via Google maps. Evaluate them considering your case and the health disparities that
health promotion initiatives seek to address. Again, simply describing them is not sufficient. Your evaluation
must be grounded in the literature and course discussions (including selected readings from class and additional
relevant material you have found). For safety reasons and so that everyone is familiar with the area and the
inventory, the entire group must do the fieldwork together (or at least in pairs), even though one person
will be responsible for this part of the write-up. This task should complement the other tasks to make the
report coherent, so group collaboration is crucial.
Task 3) Identify and describe 4-6 health promotion initiatives/programs/policies that have been implemented in
or very near the region that would be relevant to your case study and justify your choices. Provide a brief
justification if less than 6 are chosen. Also consider where they are located and details about how they are
offered. Critically evaluate them (e.g., strengths and weaknesses) by drawing on selected readings from class,
putting yourself ‘in the shoes’ of your case study, and any additional relevant information that you find. Simply
describing these initiatives is not sufficient. Pay attention to 'process' and discuss gaps that remain based on
your analysis. This task should complement the other tasks to make the report coherent so group collaboration is
Task 4) Identify and describe up to 6 health promotion initiatives/programs/policies from elsewhere in Canada
and/or internationally that are relevant to your case study and justify your choices. Provide a brief justification if
less than 6 are chosen. Critically evaluate why they may or may not work if applied to the neighborhood and
your case study by putting yourself 'in their shoes', drawing on selected readings and discussions from class, and
any additional relevant information that you can find. Simply describing them and assuming programs can be
successfully transferred from one context to another is not sufficient. Pay attention to 'process' and discuss any
gaps that may still be evident after your analysis. This task should complement the other tasks to make the
report coherent, so group collaboration is crucial.
D. Write a Preliminary Evidence-based Report
(5% group mark for the introduction + 20% individual mark for each task, Late penalty is 5% per day)
This is an exercise in tight writing and writing counts. You will be provided the rubric on the course blog to give
you an idea of what an 'excellent' assignment looks like.
E. Write a Final Briefing Report
(15% Group Mark, Late penalty is 5% per day)
This is another exercise in tight writing using a work-related report style and writing counts. Again, you will be
provided the rubric on the course blog to give you an idea of what an 'excellent' assignment looks like.
Assume that you are staff at Vancouver Coastal Health and this briefing report will go to your supervisor at VCH,
along with the city counselor and community centre manager in the neighborhood (who works for the local
government in the city). The goal is to advocate for improvements in health promoting conditions in the
neighborhood for your case study (which could also benefit others with similar characteristics along with their
families, friends, and the community as a whole). Also assume that these professionals receive dozens of briefing
reports every week and have limited budgets, so consider how you will draw attention to your report so that it will
get read and acted upon.
The briefing report should build upon but be different from your preliminary report and should include: i) a title
page that will catch their attention and convey what the report is about, ii) a table of contents, iii) a short
introduction that is concise and persuasive in terms of describing the importance of the case study, built
environment and programs/policies in the neighborhood, and the health promotion issue(s) requiring action, iv) a
brief overview of how evidence was obtained (including who did what), v) an analysis of the strengths and
weaknesses of the built environment, programs/policies in the neighborhood given the case study and your
findings, vi) justified recommendations to VCH and the City for health-related improvements both short and long
term (e.g., in the built environment, policies, programs, processes, promotions, partnerships, and anything else
you deem relevant), vii) sources for professionals wanting further information (e.g., websites in APA style with
brief descriptions of why they are important), viii) selected references (only cite the most relevant ones from the
previous report), plus up to 3 relevant labeled appendices that should be referred to in the text (e.g. see Appendix
A). It is important that relevant (selected) evidence from all 3 or 4 tasks (depending on the size of your group) be
included to build a strong case, and take care not to generalize in inappropriate ways as your evidence is based on
a case study, even though you can acknowledge the implications for others and the entire neighborhood.
Demonstrating evidence, passion for and understanding of the case study, the built environment/neighborhood,
and the recommendations for change, along with being organized in terms of the format (e.g. sub-headings), a
succinct strong writing style, and the creative use of photos and maps will improve the readability and impact of
the final briefing report. The recommendations are the most important part, but they must be well justified and
well linked to everything else. The body of the report should be max 5 single spaced pages 12 font (excluding title
page, table of contents, sources, references, photos/maps/visuals, and appendices). Submit in one pdf file by the
due date.
4. Peer Evaluation (10%)
On the last day of class, April 8, students will evaluate members of their group (excluding themselves) based on
contributions to the Community Mapping Assignment. Criteria for this will be determined by the group and outlined on
your group contract. It is important to ensure fairness by differentiating among group members. For example, someone
who contributes less should not be given the same grade as someone who contributes more.
Group membership and case studies will be assigned for the Community Health Mapping Assignment. Three steps have
been taken to ensure groups are working effectively. First, the group contract will be filled out to plan tasks and
timelines, steps to be taken if conflicts arise, and criteria for peer evaluations (10%). Second, the last 20 minutes of each
class on Thursdays starting Feb 6th will be reserved for group work throughout the term. Group participation is
mandatory – it is important for you to work with your group on Thursdays and attend other meetings scheduled by your
group. Students with valid reasons for not being in class some days (e.g., due to illness, varsity athlete commitments, etc.)
should not be penalized. Third, there is an individual component to the first report, so you will not be penalized as
much if other group members are not contributing. Remember that you are role playing as staff for Vancouver Coastal
Health and developing strong team work skills will be essential in future jobs, so do your best to create a productive and
enjoyable group experience (aka community of practice) in KIN 464.
Plagiarism and cheating are serious offences and UBC policy will be followed.
You may ask for a grade reassessment on an assignment or quiz, however, this is an exception, not an ordinary
occurrence. If you believe your assignment or quiz has been wrongly graded, explain why in a one-page typed note.
Attach the note to your graded assignment and hand it back to Lori by the next lecture. Your grade may go up, down, or
remain the same.
Grade reassessment decisions are final.
Note that peer participation grades are confidential and cannot be appealed.