| Literature DB >> 31096712 |
Anna Maria Urbaniak-Brekke1, Beata Pluta2, Magdalena Krzykała3, Marcin Andrzejewski4.
Abstract
The aim of this paper is to evaluate the relationship between the physical activity (PA) undertaken by two groups of residents living in Poland and Norway, and projects run by their respective local authorities. A secondary goal is to determine PA levels in the studied social groups. Two representative groups (one from each country) were examined using a diagnostic survey, supported by questionnaires and interviews. The Polish cohort consisted of 382 respondents who were residents of 11 municipalities in the Kalisz district of the Greater Poland voivodship. The Norwegian cohort was made up of 378 residents of 8 Indre Sogn municipalities from the Sogn og Fjordane region. Norwegians are twice as physically active as Poles and assess their municipal sport and recreation facilities to be much better. There is no statistically significant relationship between Polish and Norwegian PA levels in the two studied groups and their positive views on the impact of their local governments' projects to promote PA. Statistically significant correlations occurred between the frequency of PA undertaken, the time pattern of class unit, MET level (metabolic equivalent) and the declared use of the sport and recreation facilities of the two communities. Both groups are more willing to be active outdoors than indoors and thus municipal authorities should take particular care about the state of outdoor sports and recreation infrastructure. An innovative and original action model is presented to assist local authorities in their attempts to raise PA levels in their communities.Entities:
Keywords: action model; comparative study; local government; physical activity; socioeconomic factors
Mesh:
Year: 2019 PMID: 31096712 PMCID: PMC6572421 DOI: 10.3390/ijerph16101710
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health ISSN: 1660-4601 Impact factor: 3.390
Research group analysis.
| Variables | Poland | Norway | Chi Square Independence Test Independence Test Square | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
|
| ||||
| Sex | women | 191 | 50.0 | 186 | 49.2 | 0.827 |
| men | 191 | 50.0 | 192 | 50.8 | ||
| Age (years) | 15–19 | 32 | 8.4 | 31 | 8.2 | 0.156 |
| 20–34 | 104 | 27.2 | 83 | 22.0 | ||
| 35–49 | 96 | 25.1 | 87 | 23.0 | ||
| 50–64 | 86 | 22.5 | 89 | 23.5 | ||
| 65 and more | 64 | 16.8 | 88 | 23.3 | ||
| Education | primary | 27 | 7.3 | 13 | 3.5 | <0.001 * |
| vocational | 64 | 17.3 | 64 | 17.3 | ||
| secondary | 140 | 37.8 | 96 | 25.9 | ||
| with Bachelor’s degree | 56 | 15.1 | 123 | 33.2 | ||
| with Master’s degree | 83 | 22.4 | 74 | 20.0 | ||
| Work experience | student | 40 | 10.7 | 44 | 11.8 | 0.340 |
| worker | 249 | 66.8 | 261 | 70.0 | ||
| unemployed | 84 | 22.5 | 68 | 18.2 | ||
| Average income per person | less than PLN500 | 29 | 7.9 | 17 | 4.6 | <0.001 * |
| PLN500-1000 | 150 | 41.1 | 59 | 15.9 | ||
| more than PLN1000 | 186 | 51.0 | 295 | 79.5 | ||
| Financial situation | very good | 16 | 4.3 | 80 | 21.3 | <0.001 * |
| good | 137 | 36.5 | 184 | 48.9 | ||
| moderate | 194 | 51.7 | 88 | 23.4 | ||
| bad | 25 | 6.7 | 19 | 5.1 | ||
| very bad | 3 | 0.8 | 5 | 1.3 | ||
| Residence (years) | less than 2 | 3 | 0.8 | 24 | 6.4 | <0.001 * |
| 2–5 | 18 | 4.8 | 30 | 8.0 | ||
| 6–10 | 52 | 13.8 | 30 | 8.0 | ||
| more than 10 | 305 | 80.7 | 291 | 77.6 | ||
| Municipality | Blizanów | 27 | 3.6 | 23 | 3.0 | Aurland |
| Brzeziny | 46 | 6.1 | 18 | 2.4 | Balestrand | |
| Ceków Kol. | 23 | 3.0 | 30 | 3.9 | Leikanger | |
| Godziesze Wlk. | 42 | 5.5 | 67 | 8.8 | Luster | |
| Koźminek | 34 | 4.5 | 29 | 3.8 | Lærdal | |
| Lisków | 23 | 3.0 | 100 | 13.2 | Sogndal | |
| Mycielin | 23 | 3.0 | 36 | 4.7 | Vik | |
| Opatówek | 50 | 6.6 | 75 | 9.9 | Årdal | |
| Stawiszyn | 34 | 4.5 | ||||
| Szczytniki | 38 | 5.0 | ||||
| Żelazków | 42 | 5.5 | ||||
* statistically significant differences.
Measures of central tendency and dispersion for the MET coefficient for all respondents.
| Country |
|
|
|
|
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Total | 2554.7 | 3205.74 | 1440.0 | 22560.0 |
| Poland | 1739.0 | 2556.35 | 780.0 | 17640.0 |
| Norway | 3378.9 | 3567.95 | 2160.0 | 22560.0 |
| Mann-Whitney U test | ||||
M-mean, SD-standard deviation, Me-median, Max-maximum, Z-value of Mann-Whitney U test, p-level of significance, * statistically significant difference.
Situation variables x PA incidence.
| Country | Age | Education | Average Income | Financial Situation | Residence | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| Poland | −0.27 | <0.001 * | 0.08 | 0.139 | 0.10 | 0.052 | −0.21 | <0.001 * | −0.01 | 0.779 |
| Norway | −0.10 | 0.046 * | 0.10 | 0.047 * | 0.08 | 0.113 | −0.07 | 0.193 | −0.06 | 0.219 |
CC-correlation coefficient, S-significance (bilateral).
Local government activities for PA development x country of residence (n %).
| Actions | Country | Chi Square Independence Test | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Poland | Norway |
|
| |
| Organize sport and recreation events for residents | 52.6 | 41.3 | 9.82 | 0.002 |
| Arrange education campaigns for a healthy lifestyle | 11.3 | 14.8 | 2.12 | 0.145 |
| Invest in the development of sport and recreation infrastructure | 35.3 | 37.3 | 0.32 | 0.574 |
| Subsidise recreation activities for children and adolescents | 29.6 | 55.0 | 50.42 | <0.001 * |
| Co-finance leisure time activities for adults | 9.4 | 28.6 | 45.36 | <0.001 * |
| Maintain green and recreation areas | 30.9 | 46.0 | 18.41 | <0.001 * |
| Subsidise sport clubs, physical culture institutions | 25.1 | 54.0 | 66.13 | <0.001 * |
| Support the actions of sport and recreation centres. community centres | 23.6 | 54.2 | 75.27 | <0.001 * |
| No action initiated | 8.7 | 2.1 | 15.91 | <0.001 * |
* statistically significant differences.
Figure 1Funds allocated to PA-related activities in general expenditure from the budgets of the local governments in Kalisz and Indre Sogn districts (2010–2015).
Recommended model of operation of local authorities for the purpose of raising PA levels in the population.
| Action | Example | Citation |
|---|---|---|
| 1. Appoint a physical activity coordinator within the municipal office | Public health coordinator in Norwegian municipalities | |
| 2. Create a planning group | The group in the Luster district (Norway) includes representatives of: public health coordinator, schools (especially from schools with sport facilities open to the public), the local tourist organisation, health services, social care institutions, the police, and local government departments for: finance, investment and development, culture, education, promotion, planning, projects, and extra-budgetary funds | |
| 3. Prepare a report on the current situation | Report including a presentation of the level of knowledge on the physical activity of residents, the condition and development of sports and recreation infrastructure, current activities and investments | |
| 4. Create the action plan | Projects for the development of free-time PA of the local community (Norway) | |
| 5. Arrange public consultations | Annual survey with residents, open meetings before the implementation of the local government’s plan for physical activity | Possibility of having input into the revision of the plan in the Luster district: |
| 6. Publish and implement the action plan | Plans and project descriptions are available on the municipal website and at their offices | |
| 7. Control the plan | Committee for annual scrutiny of the plan (specialists of public health, physical activity and economy) or control by members of the planning committee | Suggested during an interview with the public health coordinator in the Luster district |
| 8. Apply for extra-budgetary funds | Obtaining extra-budgetary funds (e.g., Marshal’s Offices, Ministries, EU-programmes), searching for new investors and financial supporters (e.g., through Local Action Groups (LAGs) and sponsorship opportunities) | NIVEA action ‘Family playground’ (Brzeziny and Szczytniki districtss); |
| 9. Cooperate with other municipalities | Work of Healthy Lifestyle Centres in Norway (Frisklivssentralen) in Leikanger, Luster and Sogndal districtss (Norway), LAGs in Poland | All the eleven Polish districts are gathered in two Local Action Groups (LAG): |
| 10. Cooperate with specialists | Open lectures of specialists in the field of physical activity, health promotion, lifestyle, new forms of sport and tourism. Information about sport and recreation on the municipality website | Universities of Third Age in Poland; |
| 11. Cooperate with non-government organizations | Cooperation with non-governmental organizations and institutions, including: sports clubs, student sports clubs, tourist associations, foundations and other groups working for healthy, active lifestyles | |
| 12. Invest in infrastructure | Modernization of sports and recreation facilities, being open to innovative solutions, consultations with specialists and residents | |
| 13. Arrange for classes and events | Organization of events, fairs and competitions, supporting school competitions, free admission to sports events (Polish and Norwegian municipalities) | |
| 14. Actively promote | Local and regional authority participation in events to promote PA (Polish and Norwegian municipalities) |