| Literature DB >> 22554016 |
Ivana Stankov1, Timothy Olds, Margaret Cargo.
Abstract
A systematic review of qualitative studies was undertaken to understand the barriers to physical activity experienced by adolescents who were overweight or obese. From a search of electronic databases and 'grey' literature, published between 1950 and 2009, 15 studies met the inclusion criteria. Bronfenbrenner's model of human development provided an ecological lens for identifying and synthesising barriers to physical activity. Two reviewers appraised study quality. Miles and Huberman's cross-case analysis was integrated with thematic networking to synthesize the individual, interpersonal and environmental level barriers for boys and girls of different ethnicities and socioeconomic status, across school settings and generalised context. Thirty-five barriers were identified, 13 of which occurred in physical activity situations in the school setting, 18 were not linked to a specific setting, and the remainder were common across both contexts. The fact that these barriers emerged from studies that focused on topics such as victimisation and mental health is particularly poignant and reflects the potentially pervasive influence of adolescent's excessive weight not only in relation to physical activity situations but other aspects of their lives. Furthermore, socioeconomic status and ethnicity was poorly considered, with only one study linking these participant characteristics to quotations and discussing the potential implications. At present, there are few qualitative studies with sufficiently thick description or interpretive validity that provide insight into this vulnerable group of adolescents, and give them a voice to influence policy and practice.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2012 PMID: 22554016 PMCID: PMC3419100 DOI: 10.1186/1479-5868-9-53
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act ISSN: 1479-5868 Impact factor: 6.457
Qualitative assessment criteria utilised in the Critical Appraisal Skills Programme (CASP) for qualitative methodologies[24]
| Screening questions | Clear statement of research aims |
| Research design | Justification for research design |
| Sampling | Explanation and justification for recruitment of participants |
| Data collection | Transparency and justification in relation to data collection methods |
| Reflexivity | Specification of relationship between researcher and participants |
| Ethics | Evidence of informed consent and ethical approval |
| Data Analysis | Explanation and evidence of rigor in the process of data analysis |
| Findings | Explicitness of findings and consideration to credibility of findings |
| Value of research | Contribution to knowledge and transferability of findings |
Figure 1Flow diagram illustrating studies meeting inclusion criteria.
Descriptive characteristics of the 15 studies included in the qualitative synthesis
| 1. Lee et al. (2009) [ | ·To explore viewpoints on exercise and reasons for not exercising among obese preadolescents in the precontemplation stage | Not explicit, semi-structured focus group discussions | N = 11, Boys & girls, aged 11–13 years, BMI – not specificed (obese) according to Taiwan’s Department of Health Executive Yuan (2002) |
| ·To identify key motivators for encouraging overweight or obese children to engage in, or increase regular exercise | |||
| 2. Thomas & Irwin (2009) [ | ·To assess overweight and obese adolescents’ perceptions of the meaning of “healthy body weight”, facilitators and barriers to healthy body weight attainment, and program components they believed would effectively enhance and support health body weight behaviours. | Not explicit, semi-structured one-on-one in-depth interviews | N = 11, Boys & girls, aged 14–16 years, overweight (BMI > 85th percentile) or obese by self report (BMI > 95th percentile according to the Centres for Disease Control and Prevention (2000) |
| 3. Trout & Graber (2009) [ | ·To explore the overweight students’ experiences in and perceptions of physical education | Not explicit, one-on-one open-ended interviews and follow-up telephone interviews | N = 12, Boys & girls, aged 13–18 years, BMI > 85th percentile (overweight) according to the Centres for Disease Control and Prevention |
| 4. Griffiths & Page (2008) [ | ·To extend our understanding of weight-relation victimisation experiences of obese young people and how, in particular, this impacts on peer relationships | Interpretive Phenomenological Analysis, semi-structured in-depth interviews | N = 5, Girls, aged 12–18 years, BMI > 95th percentile (obese) according to Cole, Freeman & Preece (1995) |
| 5. Daley et al. (2008) [ | ·To explore obese adolescents’ experiences of participation in an exercise intervention | Not explicit, semi-structured interviews | N = 25, Boys & girls, aged 11–16 years, BMI > 98th percentile (obese) according to Cole, Freeman & Preece (1995) |
| 6. Curtis (2008) [ | ·To explore the experiences of young people with obesity within the secondary school environment in relation to areas of concern prioritised by the Health School Program | Not explicit, focus groups & one semi-structured interview | N = 18, Boys & girls, aged 10–17 years, BMI – not specified (obese) |
| 7. Boyington et al. (2008) [ | ·To explore cultural attitudes & perceptions toward body image, food, and physical activity among a sample of overweight African American girls | Not explicit, semi-structured group interviews | N = 12, Girls, aged 12–18 years, BMI – not specified (screened as overweight) |
| 8. Alm et al. (2008) [ | ·To explore the reasons for weight management | Not explicit, semi-structured interviews | N = 18, Boys & girls, 13–16 years, BMI > 95th percentile (obese) – which index not specified. |
| ·To identify barriers & facilitators of reaching behaviour goals | |||
| ·To investigate the role of a motivational behaviour coach in goal-setting among obese Bronx adolescents in a weight management program | |||
| 9. Bodiba et al. (2008) [ | ·To explore adolescents’ attitudes, feelings and needs regarding their body mass | Not explicit, semi-structured focus group interviews | N = 75, Girls, 17–19 years, no BMI criteria but BMI > 25 kg/m2 classed as overweight according to Senekal (1988) |
| ·To identify social limitations encountered by female adolescents as a result of their body mass | |||
| ·To investigate feelings in relation to the societal emphasis on weight loss | |||
| ·To explore relationship between body mass & self-concept | |||
| ·To identify whether there are differences in self-concept between female adolescents with low, average and high BMI | |||
| 10. Langley (2006) [ | ·To understand the factors influencing PA participation for middle school girls who are overweight or at-risk for overweight | Not explicit, focus groups & reflective journals | N = 17, Girls, aged 11–13 years, BMI > 85th percentile (overweight) according to CDC (2000) |
| ·To examine the effects of a recreation centre’s wellness program on PA levels and the determinants of PA participation in middle school girls who are overweight | |||
| 11. Wills et al. (2006) [ | ·To discover whether, & how, weight and body size infiltrate other areas of teenagers’ everyday lives | Not explicit, semi-structured interviews | N = 36, Boys & girls, 13–14 years, Normal weight to obese (BMI > 30) according to Cole et al. (2000) |
| ·To discover how these issues are experienced & perceived | |||
| ·To discover whether medical definitions of fatness are reflected in young peoples’ discursive concerns | |||
| 12. Smith (2000) [ | ·To learn about adults’ experiences as obese adolescents | Grounded Theory and Symbolic Interactionism, semi-structured interviews | N = 24, Boys & girls, aged 25–40 years reflecting back on their experiences as obese adolescents |
| ·To review literature related to the areas of childhood obesity, physical attractiveness, discrimination, and stigma | |||
| 13. Neumark-Sztainer et al. (1999) [ | ·To gather descriptions of experiences related to body & self-image from overweight adolescent girls to understand how they view themselves & relate to their social context | Not explicit, semi- structured interviews | N = 50, Girls, aged 14–20 years, BMI > 85th percentile (overweight) according to Himes & Dietz (1994) |
| ·To compare experiences related to self-image/body image, among African-American & Caucasian overweight girls | |||
| 14. Neumark-Sztainer, Story & Faibisch (1998) [ | ·To explore how African-American and Caucasian adolescent girls describe weight-related stigmatisation experiences and their response to these experiences | Not explicit, semi-structured interviews | N = 50, Girls, aged 15–17 years, BMI > 85th percentile (overweight) according to Himes & Dietz (1994) |
| 15. Smith & Perkins (2008) [ | ·To explicate the meaning of being overweight for adolescents attending a medical clinic for weight reduction | Phenomenology, story path/conversation | N = 3, Boys & girls, aged 16–18 years, |
BMI body mass index, RCT randomised controlled trial, PA physical activity.
Level of consideration of socioeconomic status (SES) and ethnicity in primary studies
| 1. Lee 2009 | Taiwan | 0 | 1* |
| 2. Thomas & Irwin 2009 | Canada | 1 | 1* |
| 3. Trout & Graber 2009 | United States | 1 | 0 |
| 4. Griffiths & Page 2008 | United Kingdom | 0 | 0 |
| 5. Daley 2008 | United Kingdom | 2 | 2 |
| 6. Curtis 2008 | United Kingdom | 1* | 0 |
| 7. Boyington 2008 | United States | 1 | 3* |
| 8. Alm 2008 | United States | 1* | 1 |
| 9. Bodiba 2008 | South Africa | 0 | 3* |
| 10. Langley 2006 | United States | 0 | 2 |
| 11. Wills 2006 | United Kingdom | 3* | 0 |
| 12. Smith 2000 | United States | 3 | 3 |
| 13. Neumark-Sztainer et al. 1999 | United States | 0 | 2 & 3 |
| 14. Neumark-Sztainer, Story & Faibish 1998 | United States | 1* | 3 |
| 15. Smith & Perkins 2008 | United States | 0 | 0 |
0 Not addressed – no attention paid to ethnicity &/or SES.
1 Descriptive –descriptive information was provided on the ethnicity &/or SES of participants.
2 Linked to quote – link was made between the ethnicity &/or SES of a participant and their corresponding quote.
3 Synthesised findings – attempt made to synthesise and discuss the influence of ethnicity &/or SES in the discussion.
* All participants from the same SES or ethnic group as indicated by the column in which it is displayed.
Figure 2Thematic network depicting environmental barriers.
Figure 3Thematic network depicting interpersonal barriers.
Figure 4Thematic network depicting individual barriers.