Journals / Ergoterapi ve Rehabilitasyon Dergisi / 2020 / Cilt: 8 - Sayı: 2

The Relationship Between Physical Activity Level and Physical Activity Awareness Among University Students

Pages
123–130
Publication Date
2020-09-09
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

Conclusions: It is thought that social and cognitive factors and gender-specific differences should be taken into consideration while determining the strategies and setting targets to promote physical activity.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Objective: The aim of this study was to determine physical activity awareness among university students, examine the relationship between physical activity and its awareness level and investigate whether there are differences according to gender.
📊
Key Findings & Data:Material and Methods: Individuals (n=403) were assessed by an online form including a socio-demographic form, Cognitive Behavioral Physical Activity Questionnaire(CBPAQ), International Physical Activity Questionnaire-Short Form (IPAQ-SF).
💡
Conclusion & Impact:Conclusions: It is thought that social and cognitive factors and gender-specific differences should be taken into consideration while determining the strategies and setting targets to promote physical activity.
🔬Design:Survey & Empirical Study
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:egzersiz · öğrenci · aktigrafi

Abstract

Objective: The aim of this study was to determine physical activity awareness among university students, examine the relationship between physical activity and its awareness level and investigate whether there are differences according to gender. Material and Methods: Individuals (n=403) were assessed by an online form including a socio-demographic form, Cognitive Behavioral Physical Activity Questionnaire(CBPAQ), International Physical Activity Questionnaire-Short Form (IPAQ-SF). Daily step counts for 7 days were taken from participants whom agreed to report (n=162) by using their smartphone’s pedometer. Results: There was a significant correlation between physical activity level and the physical activity awareness (p<0.01). There was a significant positive correlation between the self-regulation (p<,001) and the outcome expectations (p=,006); a significant negative correlation between the personal barriers (p=,001). There was a positive correlation between the number of steps and the physical activity awareness (p=,02). The effect of the self-regulation on physical activity behavior in males had a greater effect than in females (p<001), and personal barriers for women had a greater impact on physical activity than in males (p=025). Conclusions: It is thought that social and cognitive factors and gender-specific differences should be taken into consideration while determining the strategies and setting targets to promote physical activity.

Özet

Amaç: Bu çalışmanın amacı, üniversite öğrencileri arasında fiziksel aktivite farkındalığını belirlemek, fiziksel aktivite ile farkındalık düzeyi arasındaki ilişkiyi incelemek ve cinsiyete göre farklılık olup olmadığını araştırmaktır. Yöntemler: Bireyler (n = 403) sosyo-demografik form, Bilişsel Davranışsal Fiziksel Aktivite Anketi, Uluslararası Fiziksel Aktivite Anketi Kısa Formu içeren çevrimiçi bir form ile değerlendirildi. Adım sayısını bildirmeyi kabul eden gönüllüler (n=162) araştırmayı takip eden ikinci günden başlayarak 7 gün boyunca her gün adımlarını kaydetmeleri, haftanın sonunda online olarak gönderilen link üzerinden bildirmeleri istendi. Bulgular: Fiziksel aktivite seviyesi ile fiziksel aktivite farkındalığı arasında pozitif yönde anlamlı bir ilişki vardı (p <0.01). Fiziksel aktivite ile öz-düzenleme (p <, 001) ve sonuç beklentileri (p =, 006) arasında pozitif yönde anlamlı bir korelasyon vardı ; kişisel engeller arasında negatif yönde anlamlı korelasyon vardı (p =, 001). Adım sayısı ile fiziksel aktivite farkındalığı arasında pozitif bir korelasyon vardı (p =, 02). Öz-düzenleme, fiziksel aktivite davranışı üzerine erkeklerde kadınlara olan etkisinden daha büyük bir etkiye sahipti (p <001). Kişisel engeller, fiziksel aktivite davranışı üzerine kadınlarda erkeklere olan etkisinden daha büyük bir etkiye sahipti (p = ,025). Sonuç: Fiziksel aktiviteyi teşvik etmek için stratejiler ve hedefler belirlenirken sosyal ve bilişsel faktörlerin ve cinsiyete özgü farklılıkların dikkate alınması gerektiği düşünülmektedir.

🔖

Cite This Article

AYDIN, N. S., KEKLİCEK, H. (2020). The Relationship Between Physical Activity Level and Physical Activity Awareness Among University Students. Ergoterapi ve Rehabilitasyon Dergisi, Cilt: 8 - Sayı: 2, 123–130. https://ajindex.com/articles/421034

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (13)

  1. American College Health Association–National College Health Assessment (ACHA-NCHA) Spring 2016
  2. Reference Group Executive Summary. (2016).
  3. Association ACHA. Bandura, A. (2004). Health promotion by social cognitive means. Health education & behavior, 31(2), 143-164.
  4. Behrens, T., & Dinger, M. (2003). A Preliminary Investigation of College Students' Physical Activity Patters. American Journal of Health Studies., 18(2/3), 169-172.
  5. Bort-Roig, J., Gilson, N. D., Puig-Ribera, A., Contreras, R. S., & Trost, S. G. (2014). Measuring and influencing physical activity with smartphone technology: a systematic review. Sports medicine, 44(5), 671-686.
  6. Brown, S. A., Huber, D., & Bergman, A. (2006). A perceived Benefits and Barriers Scale for strenuous physical activity in college students. Am J Health Promot, 21(2), 137-140.
  7. Case, M. A., Burwick, H. A., Volpp, K. G., & Patel, M. S. (2015). Accuracy of smartphone applications and wearable devices for tracking physical activity data. Jama, 313(6), 625-626.
  8. Craig, C. L., Marshall, A. L., Sjorstrom, M., Bauman, A. E., Booth, M. L., Ainsworth, B. E., et al. (2003). International physical activity questionnaire: 12-country reliability and validity. Medicine and science in sports and exercise, 35(8), 1381-1395.
  9. Deliens, T., Deforche, B., De Bourdeaudhuij, I., & Clarys, P. (2015). Determinants of physical activity and sedentary behaviour in university students: a qualitative study using focus group discussions. BMC Public Health, 15, 201. Dishman, R. K., Motl, R. W., Sallis, J. F., Dunn, A. L., Birnbaum, A. S., Welk, G. J., et al. (2005). Self-management strategies mediate self-efficacy and physical activity. Am J Prev Med, 29(1), 10-18.
  10. Eskiler, E., Küçükibiş, F., Gülle, M., & Soyer, F. (2016). The Cognitive Behavioral Physical Activity Questionnaire: A study of validity and reliability Bilişsel Davranışçı Fiziksel Aktivite Ölçeği: Geçerlik ve güvenirlik çalışması. Journal of Human Sciences, 13(2), 2577-2587.
  11. Greaney, M. L., Less, F. D., White, A. A., Dayton, S. F., Riebe, D., Blissmer, B., et al. (2009). College students' barriers and enablers for healthful weight management: a qualitative study. J Nutr Educ Behav, 41(4), 281-286.
  12. Haase, A., Steptoe, A., Sallis, J. F., & Wardle, J. (2004). Leisure-time physical activity in university students from 23 countries: associations with health beliefs, risk awareness, and national economic development. Preventive medicine, 39(1), 182-190.
  13. Hallam, J. S., & Petosa, R. (2004). The long-ter