PURPOSE: Research on youth physical activity has focused on urban areas. Rural adolescents are more likely to be physically inactive than urban youth, contributing to higher risk of obesity and chronic diseases. Study objectives were to: (1) identify perceived opportunities and barriers to youth physical activity within a rural area and (2) identify rural community characteristics that facilitate or inhibit efforts to promote youth physical activity. METHODS: Thirty in-depth interviews were conducted with expert informants in 2 rural southern US counties. Interviewees were recruited from diverse positions across multiple sectors based on their expert knowledge of community policies and programs for youth physical activity. FINDINGS: Informants saw ball fields, natural amenities, and school sports as primary resources for youth physical activity, but they were divided on whether opportunities were abundant or scarce. Physical distance, social isolation, lack of community offerings, and transportation were identified as key barriers. Local social networks facilitated political action and volunteer recruitment to support programs. However, communities often lacked human capital to sustain initiatives. Racial divisions influenced perceptions of opportunities. Despite divisions, there were also examples of pooling resources to create and sustain physical activity opportunities. CONCLUSIONS: Developing partnerships and leveraging local resources may be essential to overcoming barriers for physical activity promotion in rural areas. Involvement of church leaders, school officials, health care workers, and cooperative extension is likely needed to establish and sustain youth rural physical activity programs. Allocating resources to existing community personnel and volunteers for continuing education may be valuable.
PURPOSE: Research on youth physical activity has focused on urban areas. Rural adolescents are more likely to be physically inactive than urban youth, contributing to higher risk of obesity and chronic diseases. Study objectives were to: (1) identify perceived opportunities and barriers to youth physical activity within a rural area and (2) identify rural community characteristics that facilitate or inhibit efforts to promote youth physical activity. METHODS: Thirty in-depth interviews were conducted with expert informants in 2 rural southern US counties. Interviewees were recruited from diverse positions across multiple sectors based on their expert knowledge of community policies and programs for youth physical activity. FINDINGS: Informants saw ball fields, natural amenities, and school sports as primary resources for youth physical activity, but they were divided on whether opportunities were abundant or scarce. Physical distance, social isolation, lack of community offerings, and transportation were identified as key barriers. Local social networks facilitated political action and volunteer recruitment to support programs. However, communities often lacked human capital to sustain initiatives. Racial divisions influenced perceptions of opportunities. Despite divisions, there were also examples of pooling resources to create and sustain physical activity opportunities. CONCLUSIONS: Developing partnerships and leveraging local resources may be essential to overcoming barriers for physical activity promotion in rural areas. Involvement of church leaders, school officials, health care workers, and cooperative extension is likely needed to establish and sustain youth rural physical activity programs. Allocating resources to existing community personnel and volunteers for continuing education may be valuable.
Authors: John A Bernhart; Elizabeth A La Valley; Andrew T Kaczynski; Sara Wilcox; Danielle E Jake-Schoffman; Nathan Peters; Caroline G Dunn; Brent Hutto Journal: J Relig Health Date: 2020-04
Authors: M Renée Umstattd Meyer; Justin B Moore; Christiaan Abildso; Michael B Edwards; Abigail Gamble; Monica L Baskin Journal: J Public Health Manag Pract Date: 2016 Sep-Oct
Authors: Simone Kohler; Natalie Helsper; Lea Dippon; Alfred Rütten; Karim Abu-Omar; Klaus Pfeifer; Jana Semrau Journal: Health Promot Int Date: 2021-12-13 Impact factor: 2.483
Authors: Sisitha Jayasinghe; Robert Soward; Timothy P Holloway; Kira A E Patterson; Kiran D K Ahuja; Roger Hughes; Nuala M Byrne; Andrew P Hills Journal: BMC Public Health Date: 2022-03-31 Impact factor: 3.295
Authors: Riitta Pyky; Soile Puhakka; Tiina M Ikäheimo; Tiina Lankila; Maarit Kangas; Matti Mäntysaari; Timo Jämsä; Raija Korpelainen Journal: J Environ Public Health Date: 2021-05-24