Engaging in and Sustaining Physical Activity and Exercise: A Descriptive Qualitative Study of Adults 65 Years and Older Using the Self-Determination Theory
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: Physical activity (PA) and exercise (EX) participation rates have not been increasing among older adults, with many not meeting recommended guidelines. This qualitative descriptive study examined factors influencing engagement in PA within and outside an older adult fitness club context, using self-determination theory (SDT). Methods: Thirty-seven community-dwelling adults 65 years and older participated in focus groups or telephone interviews. Two researchers independently coded and analyzed transcript data inductively and deductively using SDT. Results: Two broad themes, The Spectrum of Motivating Factors and Facilitators and Barriers, and nine sub-themes, Physical Activity and Exercise Brings Me Joy; Meaningful Personal Impetuses; I Get Active with a Little Help from my Spouse and Others; I See Changes and Improvements (Theme 1); I Can Do This; Connections and Sense of Belonging; I Cannot Do This; Setting, Environment, and People Supports; and Pragmatics (Theme 2), emerged from the data. All participants discussed several motivating factors: enjoyment, managing health conditions, being held ‘to account’ by others, opportunities for socialization, and seeing improvements in health and well-being. A lack of supportive environments, knowledgeable staff and suitable settings and programs were cited as barriers by participants who were not older adult fitness club members. Discussion: Factors along the extrinsic to intrinsic regulation continuum facilitated or hindered community-dwelling older adults to engage in and sustain PA within and outside an older adult fitness club context. The findings underscore the need for programs, settings, environments, and related components to be expressly older-adult-tailored to enhance motivation through competence, autonomy, and relatedness support for maximal engagement and participation in PA or EX.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".