Elżbieta Biernat1, Monika Piątkowska2. 1. Collegium of World Economy, SGH Warsaw School of Economics, Warsaw, Poland; Al. Niepodległości 162, 02-554 Warsaw, Poland. 2. Faculty of Physical Education, Josef Pilsudski University of Physical Education in Warsaw, Warsaw, Poland; 34 Marymoncka, 00-968 Warsaw, Poland.
Abstract
PURPOSE: The aim of the study was to evaluate general physical activity (PA) level on the basis of leisure time and transportation physical activity (LTPA and TPA), assess the percentage of persons not meeting PA recommendations by the World Health Organisation (WHO), and evaluate the relationship between selected sociodemographic factors and physical inactivity. METHODS: The paper is based on data (n = 7,347) retrieved from five large-scale surveys (2014-2018) used to collect information on the PA of Polish society. In order to meet the aim of the paper, we selected a sample of 2,023 Poles aged ≥ 60 years old. In each wave, the Polish long version of the International Physical Activity Questionnaire was used. Mann-Whitney U and Kruskal-Wallis tests were used to investigate the differences between the types and volume of PA and sociodemographic variables. Relationships between physical inactivity and analysed variables were evaluated using log-linear analysis. To capture relationships between physical inactivity and a set of explanatory variables, a predictive model was built. RESULTS: The total average energy expenditure amounted to 1879.5 ± 2352.5 MET-min/week, including LTPA (938.5 ± 1491.9 MET-min/week) and TPA (944.8 ± 1322.4 MET-min/week). Over the course of the last two years of the study, the average value of MET-min/week increased significantly (p < 0.05); however, prohealth WHO norms are not met by nearly 40% of Poles. Sex determines the volume of LTPA and TPA (p < 0.05) but does not determine the inactivity of seniors. Place of residence and education differentiate participation in LTPA and TPA. The lower the education level and the smaller the place of residence, the greater the inactivity. CONCLUSIONS: The target for future interventions should be people aged 60+ living in villages and small towns (especially those with primary education). It is necessary to undertake educational and motivational programmes promoting PA. It is essential to develop detailed recommendations and to create a friendly and supportive environment.
PURPOSE: The aim of the study was to evaluate general physical activity (PA) level on the basis of leisure time and transportation physical activity (LTPA and TPA), assess the percentage of persons not meeting PA recommendations by the World Health Organisation (WHO), and evaluate the relationship between selected sociodemographic factors and physical inactivity. METHODS: The paper is based on data (n = 7,347) retrieved from five large-scale surveys (2014-2018) used to collect information on the PA of Polish society. In order to meet the aim of the paper, we selected a sample of 2,023 Poles aged ≥ 60 years old. In each wave, the Polish long version of the International Physical Activity Questionnaire was used. Mann-Whitney U and Kruskal-Wallis tests were used to investigate the differences between the types and volume of PA and sociodemographic variables. Relationships between physical inactivity and analysed variables were evaluated using log-linear analysis. To capture relationships between physical inactivity and a set of explanatory variables, a predictive model was built. RESULTS: The total average energy expenditure amounted to 1879.5 ± 2352.5 MET-min/week, including LTPA (938.5 ± 1491.9 MET-min/week) and TPA (944.8 ± 1322.4 MET-min/week). Over the course of the last two years of the study, the average value of MET-min/week increased significantly (p < 0.05); however, prohealth WHO norms are not met by nearly 40% of Poles. Sex determines the volume of LTPA and TPA (p < 0.05) but does not determine the inactivity of seniors. Place of residence and education differentiate participation in LTPA and TPA. The lower the education level and the smaller the place of residence, the greater the inactivity. CONCLUSIONS: The target for future interventions should be people aged 60+ living in villages and small towns (especially those with primary education). It is necessary to undertake educational and motivational programmes promoting PA. It is essential to develop detailed recommendations and to create a friendly and supportive environment.
Authors: Anthony A Laverty; Raffaele Palladino; John Tayu Lee; Christopher Millett Journal: Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act Date: 2015-05-20 Impact factor: 6.457