Why some do but too many don't? Barriers and enablers to physical activity in regional Tasmania - an exploratory, mixed-methods study.
Environment
Infrastructure
Obesity
Physical activity
Regional
Journal
BMC public health
ISSN: 1471-2458
Titre abrégé: BMC Public Health
Pays: England
ID NLM: 100968562
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
31 03 2022
31 03 2022
Historique:
received:
29
09
2021
accepted:
08
03
2022
entrez:
31
3
2022
pubmed:
1
4
2022
medline:
2
4
2022
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
The interconnectedness of physical inactivity and sedentarism, obesity, non-communicable disease (NCD) prevalence, and socio-economic costs, are well known. There is also strong research evidence regarding the mutuality between well-being outcomes and the neighbourhood environment. However, much of this evidence relates to urban contexts and there is a paucity of evidence in relation to regional communities. A better understanding of available physical activity (PA) infrastructure, its usage, and community perceptions regarding neighbourhood surroundings, could be very important in determining requirements for health improvement in regional communities. The aims of this research were to 1. Explore and evaluate the public's perception of the PA environment; and 2. Evaluate the quantity, variety, and quality of existing PA infrastructure in regional Northwest (NW) Tasmania. A mixed methods approach guided data collection, analysis, and presentation. Quality of PA infrastructure was assessed using the Physical Activity Resource Assessment (PARA) instrument and public perception about PA environment was evaluated using the International Physical Activity Questionnaire - Environmental (IPAQ-E) module. Quantitative data were analysed using descriptive summative methods and a team-based researcher triangulation approach was utilised for qualitative data. Overall, a wide array of high-quality PA infrastructure (with minimal incivilities such as auditory annoyance, litter, graffiti, dog refuse, and vandalism etc.) was available. Survey respondents rated neighbourhoods positively. The overall quality of PA infrastructure, rated on a scale from 0 to 3, was assessed as high (all rated between 2 to 3) with minimal incivilities (rated between 0 and 1.5). Of note, survey respondents confirmed the availability of numerous free-to-access recreational tracks and natural amenities across the 3 local government areas (LGAs) studied. Importantly, most respondents reported minimal disruption to their routine PA practices due to the COVID-19 pandemic. This exploratory research confirmed the availability of a wide range of high-quality PA infrastructure across all three LGAs and there was an overwhelming public appreciation of this infrastructure. The challenge remains to implement place-based PA interventions that address extant barriers and further increase public awareness and utilisation of high-quality PA infrastructure.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
The interconnectedness of physical inactivity and sedentarism, obesity, non-communicable disease (NCD) prevalence, and socio-economic costs, are well known. There is also strong research evidence regarding the mutuality between well-being outcomes and the neighbourhood environment. However, much of this evidence relates to urban contexts and there is a paucity of evidence in relation to regional communities. A better understanding of available physical activity (PA) infrastructure, its usage, and community perceptions regarding neighbourhood surroundings, could be very important in determining requirements for health improvement in regional communities. The aims of this research were to 1. Explore and evaluate the public's perception of the PA environment; and 2. Evaluate the quantity, variety, and quality of existing PA infrastructure in regional Northwest (NW) Tasmania.
METHODS
A mixed methods approach guided data collection, analysis, and presentation. Quality of PA infrastructure was assessed using the Physical Activity Resource Assessment (PARA) instrument and public perception about PA environment was evaluated using the International Physical Activity Questionnaire - Environmental (IPAQ-E) module. Quantitative data were analysed using descriptive summative methods and a team-based researcher triangulation approach was utilised for qualitative data.
RESULTS
Overall, a wide array of high-quality PA infrastructure (with minimal incivilities such as auditory annoyance, litter, graffiti, dog refuse, and vandalism etc.) was available. Survey respondents rated neighbourhoods positively. The overall quality of PA infrastructure, rated on a scale from 0 to 3, was assessed as high (all rated between 2 to 3) with minimal incivilities (rated between 0 and 1.5). Of note, survey respondents confirmed the availability of numerous free-to-access recreational tracks and natural amenities across the 3 local government areas (LGAs) studied. Importantly, most respondents reported minimal disruption to their routine PA practices due to the COVID-19 pandemic.
CONCLUSION
This exploratory research confirmed the availability of a wide range of high-quality PA infrastructure across all three LGAs and there was an overwhelming public appreciation of this infrastructure. The challenge remains to implement place-based PA interventions that address extant barriers and further increase public awareness and utilisation of high-quality PA infrastructure.
Identifiants
pubmed: 35354448
doi: 10.1186/s12889-022-13001-6
pii: 10.1186/s12889-022-13001-6
pmc: PMC8967567
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
627Informations de copyright
© 2022. The Author(s).
Références
PLoS One. 2014 Sep 24;9(9):e108136
pubmed: 25250805
Am J Health Promot. 2006 Jul-Aug;20(6):411-21
pubmed: 16871821
Health Promot J Austr. 2015 Aug;26(2):99-104
pubmed: 26169296
Soc Sci Med. 2016 Jan;149:104-13
pubmed: 26708246
Lancet. 2012 Jul 21;380(9838):294-305
pubmed: 22818941
Sociol Health Illn. 2010 Nov;32(7):1059-71
pubmed: 20942822
Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2003 Aug;35(8):1381-95
pubmed: 12900694
Prev Med. 1997 Jan-Feb;26(1):131-7
pubmed: 9010908
Prev Med. 2008 Sep;47(3):241-51
pubmed: 18499242
Ann Behav Med. 2004 Aug;28(1):20-8
pubmed: 15249256
Prog Cardiovasc Dis. 2021 Jan-Feb;64:9-16
pubmed: 33130190
J Rural Health. 2014 Fall;30(4):379-87
pubmed: 24701977
Aust N Z J Public Health. 2020 Oct;44(5):421-426
pubmed: 32955747
J Glob Health. 2020 Jun;10(1):010410
pubmed: 32373329
Lancet. 2016 May 28;387(10034):2207-17
pubmed: 27045735
Health Promot J Austr. 2012 Dec;23(3):201-7
pubmed: 23540320
Prev Med. 2002 Dec;35(6):601-11
pubmed: 12460528
Lancet Public Health. 2017 May 04;2(6):e260-e266
pubmed: 28626828
Lancet. 2012 Jul 21;380(9838):258-71
pubmed: 22818938
Health Place. 2008 Dec;14(4):889-93
pubmed: 18086547
BMJ. 2005 Sep 17;331(7517):611-2
pubmed: 16113034
Prev Med. 2008 Sep;47(3):294-8
pubmed: 18544463
Ann Behav Med. 2003 Spring;25(2):100-4
pubmed: 12704011
Health Promot J Austr. 2012 Aug;23(2):153-6
pubmed: 23088479
J Phys Act Health. 2010 Jul;7(4):451-9
pubmed: 20683086
Prog Cardiovasc Dis. 2021 Jan-Feb;64:108-110
pubmed: 32277997
Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act. 2005 Sep 14;2:13
pubmed: 16162285
Qual Health Res. 2017 Mar;27(4):591-608
pubmed: 27670770
Prev Med. 2020 Mar;132:105995
pubmed: 31954139
Am J Health Promot. 1996 Mar-Apr;10(4):282-98
pubmed: 10159709
BMC Public Health. 2015 Apr 29;15:434
pubmed: 25928848
Implement Sci. 2011 Apr 23;6:42
pubmed: 21513547
Health Educ Behav. 2003 Apr;30(2):225-44
pubmed: 12693525
Prev Med. 2020 Jan;130:105900
pubmed: 31733224
Clin Soc Work J. 2020;48(1):18-24
pubmed: 32431462
J Epidemiol Community Health. 2003 Jan;57(1):29-35
pubmed: 12490645
Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act. 2013 Aug 15;10:98
pubmed: 23945179
Am J Prev Med. 2009 Jun;36(6):484-90
pubmed: 19460656
Health Psychol. 2008 Mar;27(2S):S126-35
pubmed: 18377154
BMC Med Res Methodol. 2018 Nov 21;18(1):148
pubmed: 30463515
BMC Public Health. 2019 Jan 30;19(1):126
pubmed: 30700262
J Urban Health. 2014 Oct;91(5):894-907
pubmed: 25078037