Cargando…
Why some do but too many don’t? Barriers and enablers to physical activity in regional Tasmania – an exploratory, mixed-methods study
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. Howev...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
BioMed Central
2022
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8967567/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35354448 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12889-022-13001-6 |
_version_ | 1784678870104932352 |
---|---|
author | Jayasinghe, Sisitha Soward, Robert Holloway, Timothy P. Patterson, Kira A. E. Ahuja, Kiran D. K. Hughes, Roger Byrne, Nuala M. Hills, Andrew P. |
author_facet | Jayasinghe, Sisitha Soward, Robert Holloway, Timothy P. Patterson, Kira A. E. Ahuja, Kiran D. K. Hughes, Roger Byrne, Nuala M. Hills, Andrew P. |
author_sort | Jayasinghe, Sisitha |
collection | PubMed |
description | 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. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12889-022-13001-6. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-8967567 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2022 |
publisher | BioMed Central |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-89675672022-03-31 Why some do but too many don’t? Barriers and enablers to physical activity in regional Tasmania – an exploratory, mixed-methods study Jayasinghe, Sisitha Soward, Robert Holloway, Timothy P. Patterson, Kira A. E. Ahuja, Kiran D. K. Hughes, Roger Byrne, Nuala M. Hills, Andrew P. BMC Public Health Research 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. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12889-022-13001-6. BioMed Central 2022-03-31 /pmc/articles/PMC8967567/ /pubmed/35354448 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12889-022-13001-6 Text en © The Author(s) 2022 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Open AccessThis article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) . The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) ) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data. |
spellingShingle | Research Jayasinghe, Sisitha Soward, Robert Holloway, Timothy P. Patterson, Kira A. E. Ahuja, Kiran D. K. Hughes, Roger Byrne, Nuala M. Hills, Andrew P. Why some do but too many don’t? Barriers and enablers to physical activity in regional Tasmania – an exploratory, mixed-methods study |
title | Why some do but too many don’t? Barriers and enablers to physical activity in regional Tasmania – an exploratory, mixed-methods study |
title_full | Why some do but too many don’t? Barriers and enablers to physical activity in regional Tasmania – an exploratory, mixed-methods study |
title_fullStr | Why some do but too many don’t? Barriers and enablers to physical activity in regional Tasmania – an exploratory, mixed-methods study |
title_full_unstemmed | Why some do but too many don’t? Barriers and enablers to physical activity in regional Tasmania – an exploratory, mixed-methods study |
title_short | Why some do but too many don’t? Barriers and enablers to physical activity in regional Tasmania – an exploratory, mixed-methods study |
title_sort | why some do but too many don’t? barriers and enablers to physical activity in regional tasmania – an exploratory, mixed-methods study |
topic | Research |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8967567/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35354448 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12889-022-13001-6 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT jayasinghesisitha whysomedobuttoomanydontbarriersandenablerstophysicalactivityinregionaltasmaniaanexploratorymixedmethodsstudy AT sowardrobert whysomedobuttoomanydontbarriersandenablerstophysicalactivityinregionaltasmaniaanexploratorymixedmethodsstudy AT hollowaytimothyp whysomedobuttoomanydontbarriersandenablerstophysicalactivityinregionaltasmaniaanexploratorymixedmethodsstudy AT pattersonkiraae whysomedobuttoomanydontbarriersandenablerstophysicalactivityinregionaltasmaniaanexploratorymixedmethodsstudy AT ahujakirandk whysomedobuttoomanydontbarriersandenablerstophysicalactivityinregionaltasmaniaanexploratorymixedmethodsstudy AT hughesroger whysomedobuttoomanydontbarriersandenablerstophysicalactivityinregionaltasmaniaanexploratorymixedmethodsstudy AT byrnenualam whysomedobuttoomanydontbarriersandenablerstophysicalactivityinregionaltasmaniaanexploratorymixedmethodsstudy AT hillsandrewp whysomedobuttoomanydontbarriersandenablerstophysicalactivityinregionaltasmaniaanexploratorymixedmethodsstudy |