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

Abstract

Objective: Theaim of this study was to determine physical activity awareness among universitystudents, examine the relationship between physical activity and its awarenesslevel and investigate whether there are differences according to gender. Materialand Methods: Individuals (n=403)were assessed by an online form including a socio-demographic form, CognitiveBehavioral Physical Activity Questionnaire(CBPAQ), International PhysicalActivity Questionnaire-Short Form (IPAQ-SF). Daily step counts for 7 days weretaken from participants whom agreed to report (n=162) by using theirsmartphone’s pedometer. Results: Therewas a significant correlation between physical activity level and the physicalactivity awareness (p<0.01). There was a significant positive correlationbetween 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 physicalactivity awareness (p=,02). The effect of the self-regulation on physicalactivity behavior in males had a greater effect than in females (p<001), andpersonal barriers for women had a greater impact on physical activity than inmales (p=025). Conclusions: It isthought that social and cognitive factors and gender-specific differencesshould be taken into consideration while determining the strategies and settingtargets to promote physical activity.

Keywords

• Sağlık Kurumları Yönetimi

Files

Only the metadata of this record is published.

References

1. American College Health Association–National College Health Assessment (ACHA-NCHA) Spring 2016 Reference Group Executive Summary. (2016). Association ACHA.
2. Bandura, A. (2004). Health promotion by social cognitive means. Health education & behavior, 31(2), 143-164.
3. Behrens, T., & Dinger, M. (2003). A Preliminary Investigation of College Students' Physical Activity Patters. American Journal of Health Studies., 18(2/3), 169-172.
4. 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.
5. 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.
6. 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.
7. 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.
8. 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.
9. 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-term impact of a four-session work-site intervention on selected social cognitive theory variables linked to adult exercise adherence. Health Educ Behav, 31(1), 88-100.
14. Huang, T. T., Harris, K. J., Lee, R. E., Nazir, N., Born, W., & Kaur, H. (2003). Assessing overweight, obesity, diet, and physical activity in college students. J Am Coll Health, 52(2), 83-86.
15. Keating, X. D., Guan, J., Pinero, J. C., & Bridges, D. M. (2005). A meta-analysis of college students' physical activity behaviors. J Am Coll Health, 54(2), 116-125.
16. Krejcie, R. V., & Morgan, D. W. (1970). Determining Sample Size for Research Activities. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 30(3), 607-610.
17. Leslie, E. F., M; Owen, N; Veitch, J;. (2000). A university campus physical activity promotion program. Health Promotion Journal of Australia: Official Journal of Australian Association of Health Promotion Professionals, 10(1), 51-54.
18. Lubans, D. R., Morgan, P. J., & Tudor-Locke, C. (2009). A systematic review of studies using pedometers to promote physical activity among youth. Preventive medicine, 48(4), 307-315.
19. Organization, W. H. (2010). Global recommendations on physical activity for health: World Health Organization.
20. Özşaker, M. (2012). Gençlerin serbest zaman aktivitelerine katılamama nedenleri üzerine bir inceleme. Selçuk Üniversitesi Beden Eğitimi ve Spor Bilim Dergisi, 14(1), 126-131.
21. Öztürk, M. (2005). Üniversitede egitim-ögretim gören ögrencilerde Uluslararasi Fiziksel Aktivite Anketi'nin geçerliligi ve güvenirligi ve fiziksel aktivite düzeylerinin belirlenmesi (Research on Reliability and Validity of International Physical Activity Questionnaire and Determination of Physical Activity Level in University Students). Hacettepe University, Intitute of Health Sciences Mester Thesis, Ankara, Turkiye.
22. Petosa, P. (1993). Use of social cognitive theory to explain exercise behavior among adults. The Ohio State University.
23. Plotnikoff, R. C., Costigan, S. A., Karunamuni, N., & Lubans, D. R. (2013). Social cognitive theories used to explain physical activity behavior in adolescents: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Preventive medicine, 56(5), 245-253.
24. Rovniak, L. S., Anderson, E. S., Winett, R. A., & Stephens, R. S. (2002). Social cognitive determinants of physical activity in young adults: a prospective structural equation analysis. Ann Behav Med, 24(2), 149-156.
25. S., E. (2018). Sport and physical activity. Brussels, Belgium: European Commission.
26. Savcı, F. D. S., Öztürk, U. F. M., & Arıkan, F. D. H. (2006). Üniversite ö¤ rencilerinin fiziksel aktivite düzeyleri. Türk Kardiyol Dern Arfl, 34(3), 166-172.
27. Schembre, S. M., Durand, C. P., Blissmer, B. J., & Greene, G. W. (2015). Development and validation of the cognitive behavioral physical activity questionnaire. American Journal of Health Promotion, 30(1), 58-65.
28. Stock, C., Wille, L., & Kramer, A. (2001). Gender-specific health behaviors of German university students predict the interest in campus health promotion. Health Promot Int, 16(2), 145-154.
29. Sullum, J., Clark, M. M., & King, T. K. (2000). Predictors of exercise relapse in a college population. J Am Coll Health, 48(4), 175-180.Townsend, N., Wickramasinghe, K., Williams, J., Bhatnagar, P., & Rayner, M. (2016). Physical Activity Statistics 2015 2015. London: British Heart Foundation Google Scholar.
30. Tudor-Locke, C., Craig, C. L., Aoyagi, Y., Bell, R. C., Croteau, K. A., De Bourdeaudhuij, I., et al. (2011). How many steps/day are enough? For older adults and special populations. International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity, 8(1), 1.
31. Umstattd, M. R., Motl, R., Wilcox, S., Saunders, R., & Watford, M. (2009). Measuring physical activity self-regulation strategies in older adults. Journal of Physical Activity and Health, 6(s1), S105-S112.
32. Ünal, B., Ergör, G., Horasan, G., Kalaça, S., & Sözmen, K. (2013). Türkiye kronik hastalıklar ve risk faktörleri sıklığı çalışması. Ankara: Sağlık Bakanlığı.
33. Young, M. D., Plotnikoff, R. C., Collins, C. E., Callister, R., & Morgan, P. J. (2014). Social cognitive theory and physical activity: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Obes Rev, 15(12), 983-995.

Cite this publication

@article{sermenliaydin2019relationship,
  author = {Sermenli Ayd{\i}n, Nimet and Keklicek, Hilal},
  title = {{The Relationship Between Physical Activity Level and Physical Activity Awareness Among University Students}},
  journal = {Journal of Occupational Therapy and Rehabilitation},
  volume = {8},
  number = {2},
  pages = {123--130},
  publisher = {Hacettepe {\"U}niversitesi},
  year = {2019},
  month = {9},
  issn = {2147-8945},
  doi = {10.30720/ered.619945},
  url = {https://hacettepe.hbtech.com.tr/en/publication/the-relationship-between-physical-activity-level-and-physical-activity-awareness-among-university-students},
  language = {en},
  keywords = {Sa{\u{g}}l{\i}k Kurumlar{\i} Y{\"o}netimi},
  abstract = {Objective: Theaim of this study was to determine physical activity awareness among universitystudents, examine the relationship between physical activity and its awarenesslevel and investigate whether there are differences according to gender. Materialand Methods: Individuals (n=403)were assessed by an online form including a socio-demographic form, CognitiveBehavioral Physical Activity Questionnaire(CBPAQ), International PhysicalActivity Questionnaire-Short Form (IPAQ-SF). Daily step counts for 7 days weretaken from participants whom agreed to report (n=162) by using theirsmartphone's pedometer. Results: Therewas a significant correlation between physical activity level and the physicalactivity awareness (p\<0.01). There was a significant positive correlationbetween 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 physicalactivity awareness (p=,02). The effect of the self-regulation on physicalactivity behavior in males had a greater effect than in females (p\<001), andpersonal barriers for women had a greater impact on physical activity than inmales (p=025). Conclusions: It isthought that social and cognitive factors and gender-specific differencesshould be taken into consideration while determining the strategies and settingtargets to promote physical activity.},
  affiliation = {MARMARA {\"U}N{\.I}VERS{\.I}TES{\.I} and TRAKYA {\"U}N{\.I}VERS{\.I}TES{\.I}}
}

TY  - JOUR
AU  - Sermenli Aydın, Nimet
AU  - Keklicek, Hilal
TI  - The Relationship Between Physical Activity Level and Physical Activity Awareness Among University Students
T2  - Journal of Occupational Therapy and Rehabilitation
VL  - 8
IS  - 2
PY  - 2019
DA  - 2019/09/13/
SP  - 123
EP  - 130
PB  - Hacettepe Üniversitesi
SN  - 2147-8945
DO  - 10.30720/ered.619945
UR  - https://hacettepe.hbtech.com.tr/en/publication/the-relationship-between-physical-activity-level-and-physical-activity-awareness-among-university-students
AB  - Objective: Theaim of this study was to determine physical activity awareness among universitystudents, examine the relationship between physical activity and its awarenesslevel and investigate whether there are differences according to gender. Materialand Methods: Individuals (n=403)were assessed by an online form including a socio-demographic form, CognitiveBehavioral Physical Activity Questionnaire(CBPAQ), International PhysicalActivity Questionnaire-Short Form (IPAQ-SF). Daily step counts for 7 days weretaken from participants whom agreed to report (n=162) by using theirsmartphone’s pedometer. Results: Therewas a significant correlation between physical activity level and the physicalactivity awareness (p<0.01). There was a significant positive correlationbetween 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 physicalactivity awareness (p=,02). The effect of the self-regulation on physicalactivity behavior in males had a greater effect than in females (p<001), andpersonal barriers for women had a greater impact on physical activity than inmales (p=025). Conclusions: It isthought that social and cognitive factors and gender-specific differencesshould be taken into consideration while determining the strategies and settingtargets to promote physical activity.
KW  - Sağlık Kurumları Yönetimi
LA  - en
AD  - MARMARA ÜNİVERSİTESİ
AD  - TRAKYA ÜNİVERSİTESİ
ER  -