Physical activity and socio-economic status of single and married urban adults: a cross-sectional study.
Marital status
Metropolitan population
Physical activity
Socio-economic status
Journal
PeerJ
ISSN: 2167-8359
Titre abrégé: PeerJ
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 101603425
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
2021
2021
Historique:
received:
05
03
2021
accepted:
19
10
2021
entrez:
25
11
2021
pubmed:
26
11
2021
medline:
26
11
2021
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Changing family models have resulted in a large increase in the number of single-person households. This phenomenon has certain implications for society and the economy as single people often exhibit different behaviours, including their engagement in health-related physical activity, than those who are married and living with partners. However, the results of studies on determinants of physical activity in people of different marital status have been inconclusive. The aim of this study was to identify associations between physical activity and socioeconomic status in single and married urban adults. The study material consisted of 4,460 persons (1,828 single and 2,632 married and living with partners). A cross-sectional study was conducted in Wroclaw (Poland). A diagnostic survey-direct interview method was used. Two research tools were applied: the International Physical Activity Questionnaire Short Form (IPAQ-SF) and the Socioeconomic Status Questionnaire (S-ESQ). The level of respondents' physical activity was assessed following WHO recommendations. The descriptive statistics included the number and frequency of categories of dependent and independent variables as well as measures of association between them, The odds ratio of meeting the WHO physical activity recommendations was almost 70% higher in single than in married respondents (OR = 1.67; CI [1.46-2.19]), and slightly more than 40% higher after adjusting for sex, age and education (aOR = 1.42; CI [1.21-1.67]). In both groups socioeconomic the respondents' status revealed a significant and slightly different association with their levels of physical activity. Occupational status and financial savings significantly affected the level of physical activity in single respondents, while net disposable income was a significant modifier of physical activity levels in respondents who were married or lived with their partners. Assessment of the levels and determinants of physical activity among people of different marital status should be continued and extended to other subpopulations. This will allow effective preventive and therapeutic measures to be taken for groups most at risk of hypokinesia. Programs aimed at improving physical activity accounting for the socioeconomic status and marital status of their beneficiaries are particularly important.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Changing family models have resulted in a large increase in the number of single-person households. This phenomenon has certain implications for society and the economy as single people often exhibit different behaviours, including their engagement in health-related physical activity, than those who are married and living with partners. However, the results of studies on determinants of physical activity in people of different marital status have been inconclusive. The aim of this study was to identify associations between physical activity and socioeconomic status in single and married urban adults.
METHODS
METHODS
The study material consisted of 4,460 persons (1,828 single and 2,632 married and living with partners). A cross-sectional study was conducted in Wroclaw (Poland). A diagnostic survey-direct interview method was used. Two research tools were applied: the International Physical Activity Questionnaire Short Form (IPAQ-SF) and the Socioeconomic Status Questionnaire (S-ESQ). The level of respondents' physical activity was assessed following WHO recommendations. The descriptive statistics included the number and frequency of categories of dependent and independent variables as well as measures of association between them,
RESULTS
RESULTS
The odds ratio of meeting the WHO physical activity recommendations was almost 70% higher in single than in married respondents (OR = 1.67; CI [1.46-2.19]), and slightly more than 40% higher after adjusting for sex, age and education (aOR = 1.42; CI [1.21-1.67]). In both groups socioeconomic the respondents' status revealed a significant and slightly different association with their levels of physical activity. Occupational status and financial savings significantly affected the level of physical activity in single respondents, while net disposable income was a significant modifier of physical activity levels in respondents who were married or lived with their partners.
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
Assessment of the levels and determinants of physical activity among people of different marital status should be continued and extended to other subpopulations. This will allow effective preventive and therapeutic measures to be taken for groups most at risk of hypokinesia. Programs aimed at improving physical activity accounting for the socioeconomic status and marital status of their beneficiaries are particularly important.
Identifiants
pubmed: 34820193
doi: 10.7717/peerj.12466
pii: 12466
pmc: PMC8588853
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
e12466Informations de copyright
© 2021 Puciato and Rozpara.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
The authors declare that they have no competing interests.
Références
Kidney Blood Press Res. 2016;41(1):86-98
pubmed: 26872253
Int J Epidemiol. 1996 Feb;25(1):86-93
pubmed: 8666509
BMJ Open. 2019 Jun 11;9(6):e028334
pubmed: 31189681
Hong Kong J Occup Ther. 2017 Jun;29(1):19-25
pubmed: 30186069
PeerJ. 2016 Jun 02;4:e2066
pubmed: 27280072
J Sci Med Sport. 2014 Mar;17(2):188-94
pubmed: 23727399
Am J Health Behav. 2019 Nov 1;43(6):1040-1049
pubmed: 31662164
Exerc Sport Sci Rev. 2000 Apr;28(2):85-8
pubmed: 10902091
Med Pr. 2013;64(5):649-57
pubmed: 24502128
Int J Rehabil Res. 2002 Jun;25(2):119-31
pubmed: 12021598
Scand J Public Health. 2016 Feb;44(1):62-9
pubmed: 26392420
PLoS One. 2016 Jun 07;11(6):e0156766
pubmed: 27272130
Scand J Work Environ Health. 2009 Dec;35(6):466-74
pubmed: 19851700
Women Health. 2013;53(2):203-15
pubmed: 23517516
Prev Med. 2013 Feb;56(2):99-102
pubmed: 23200875
J Aging Health. 2000 Nov;12(4):538-59
pubmed: 11503731
Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2010 Oct;42(10):1819-25
pubmed: 20305579
Isr J Health Policy Res. 2018 Oct 15;7(1):48
pubmed: 30318017
AAOHN J. 2006 Jun;54(6):249-61
pubmed: 16800402
Qual Life Res. 2012 Nov;21(9):1537-43
pubmed: 22362520
J Phys Act Health. 2015 Feb;12(2):200-7
pubmed: 24508923
Arch Public Health. 2016 Dec 29;74:54
pubmed: 28042473
Int J Occup Med Environ Health. 2015;28(2):283-94
pubmed: 26182923
Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2018 May 05;15(5):
pubmed: 29734745
Eur J Ageing. 2017 Apr 28;15(1):5-13
pubmed: 29531510
PLoS One. 2015 Jul 15;10(7):e0132918
pubmed: 26177205
Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act. 2012 Sep 19;9:116
pubmed: 22992350
Int J Occup Med Environ Health. 2013 Dec;26(6):846-55
pubmed: 24464564
Stat Med. 2016 Dec 30;35(30):5730-5735
pubmed: 27460748
Soc Sci Med. 2013 Dec;98:197-203
pubmed: 24331899
Ann Epidemiol. 2016 Oct;26(10):685-692
pubmed: 27659584
Ann Agric Environ Med. 2018 Mar 14;25(1):176-181
pubmed: 29575854
Nutr Hosp. 2015 May 01;31(5):2174-81
pubmed: 25929390
Eur J Prev Cardiol. 2016 Jul;23(10):1051-3
pubmed: 27118364
Public Health Rep. 1985 Mar-Apr;100(2):126-31
pubmed: 3920711
Int J Occup Med Environ Health. 2014 Jun;27(3):487-97
pubmed: 24952145
J Occup Health. 2005 Sep;47(5):414-23
pubmed: 16230835
Med Pr. 2012;63(3):271-9
pubmed: 22880449
Diabetes Res Clin Pract. 2012 Oct;98(1):46-50
pubmed: 22749774
Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2020 Nov 05;17(21):
pubmed: 33167352
Lancet. 2016 Sep 24;388(10051):1325-36
pubmed: 27475270
Ann Agric Environ Med. 2014;21(2):369-74
pubmed: 24959792
Health Psychol. 2011 Mar;30(2):204-11
pubmed: 21401254
J Phys Act Health. 2015 Jul;12(7):915-23
pubmed: 25156186