Barriers and motivators for physical activity in community dwelling adults
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Background: Benefits of a physically active lifestyle include an increase in physical, social and mental health and well-being, and a significantly reduced risk of developing non-communicable conditions including cardiovascular disease, diabetes and obesity. However, despite these benefits not all individuals meet current international guidelines for physical activity (PA). In order to facilitate uptake and maintenance of regular physical activity, it is important to identify and understand any barriers or motivators to PA in a community setting. Therefore, we undertook a comprehensive systematic review of the barriers and motivators for physical activity in community dwelling adults. Objective: The quantitative objective was to identify the barriers and motivators for participation in physical activity in community dwelling adults. The qualitative objective was to identify the community dwelling adults’ perceptions and experiences of barriers and motivators to physical activity Methods: Studies were considered if they included community dwelling adults in developed countries aged 19–64 years without any medical conditions. Studies published in English from 2004 to September 2015 that identified barriers and motivators to physical activity or perceptions and experiences of barriers and motivators were included. A three step search strategy was employed to identify relevant studies. Each study was assessed by two independent reviewers prior to inclusion in the review using the JBI-MAStARI and JBI-QARI tools. Any disagreements were resolved through discussion or with a third reviewer. Results: Electronic searches identified over 16,000 citations of which 91 were included in the review (46 qualitative and 45 quantitative); providing data on over 72,000 adults. Studies were undertaken internationally (UK, Europe, Australia, and Canada) with the majority occurring in the USA. Study participants represented rural and urban populations, mother/mothers to be, low income and socio-economically disadvantaged adults, overweight/obese adults as well as ethnically diverse populations with a greater number of females than males represented. The majority of the quantitative studies were descriptive in nature and due to the diverse nature of these studies; this section of the review underwent a narrative analysis and presentation. The qualitative findings were pooled together into categories to undergo a meta-synthesis to produce comprehensive synthesised findings around barriers and motivators to physical activity. Initial results identified the most commonly reported barriers were intra and inter-personal such as time, obligations, fatigue, and the most common motivators were health benefits (mental & physical), support and childcare. Results are currently being finalised and will be reported fully in this presentation. Discussion: This review has comprehensively encompassed the key barriers and motivators to physical activity in community dwelling adults and has included both quantitative and qualitative data. This has enabled us to use in-depth data from adults’ perceptions as well as comprehend the frequency of specific barriers and motivators that are reported in relation to physical activity. Conclusion: This review has contributed to further understanding the barriers and motivators around physical activity in community dwelling adults. The results will support the development of interventions to address barriers to physical activity, whilst consolidating motivators that maintain and increase physical activity in community dwelling adults.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».