Antonio Castillo-Paredes1, Natalia Inostroza Jiménez2,3, Maribel Parra-Saldías4, Ximena Palma-Leal4, José Luis Felipe5, Itziar Págola Aldazabal5, Ximena Díaz-Martínez6, Fernando Rodríguez-Rodríguez4. 1. Grupo AFySE, Investigación en Actividad Física y Salud Escolar, Escuela de Pedagogía en Educación Física, Facultad de Educación, Universidad de Las Américas, Santiago 8370035, Chile. 2. Área Salud, Universidad Tecnológica de Chile INACAP, La Serena 1700000, Chile. 3. Magíster en Nutrición para la Actividad Física y el Deporte, Escuela de Nutrición y Dietética, Facultad de Ciencias, Universidad Mayor, Santiago 8580745, Chile. 4. IRyS Research Group, School of Physical Education, Pontificia Universidad Católica de Valparaíso, Valparaíso 2374631, Chile. 5. School of Sport Sciences, Universidad Europea de Madrid, 28670 Madrid, Spain. 6. Quality of Life Research Group in Different Populations, Department of Education Sciences, Universidad del Bíobío, Chillan 3800949, Chile.
Abstract
Biking and walking are active commuting, which is considered an opportunity to create healthy habits. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to determine the main environmental and psychosocial barriers perceived by students, leading to less Active Commuting (AC) to university and to not reaching the Physical Activity (PA) recommendations. MATERIAL AND METHODS: In this cross-sectional study, 1349 university students (637 men and 712 women) were selected. A self-reported questionnaire was applied to assess the mode of commuting, PA level and barriers to the use of the AC. RESULTS: Women presented higher barriers associated with passive commuting than men. The main barriers for women were "involves too much planning" (OR: 5.25; 95% CI: 3.14-8.78), "It takes too much time" (OR: 4.62; 95% CI: 3.05-6.99) and "It takes too much physical effort " (OR: 3.18; 95% CI: 2.05-4.94). In men, the main barriers were "It takes too much time" (OR: 4.22; 95% CI: 2.97-5.99), "involves too much planning" (OR: 2.49; 95% CI: 1.67-3.70) and "too much traffic along the route" (OR: 2.07; 95% CI: 1.47-2.93). Psychosocial barriers were found in both sexes. CONCLUSIONS: Psychosocial and personal barriers were more positively associated with passive commuting than environmental barriers. Interventions at the university are necessary to improve the perception of AC and encourage personal organization to travel more actively.
Biking and walking are active commuting, which is considered an opportunity to create healthy habits. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to determine the main environmental and psychosocial barriers perceived by students, leading to less Active Commuting (AC) to university and to not reaching the Physical Activity (PA) recommendations. MATERIAL AND METHODS: In this cross-sectional study, 1349 university students (637 men and 712 women) were selected. A self-reported questionnaire was applied to assess the mode of commuting, PA level and barriers to the use of the AC. RESULTS:Women presented higher barriers associated with passive commuting than men. The main barriers for women were "involves too much planning" (OR: 5.25; 95% CI: 3.14-8.78), "It takes too much time" (OR: 4.62; 95% CI: 3.05-6.99) and "It takes too much physical effort " (OR: 3.18; 95% CI: 2.05-4.94). In men, the main barriers were "It takes too much time" (OR: 4.22; 95% CI: 2.97-5.99), "involves too much planning" (OR: 2.49; 95% CI: 1.67-3.70) and "too much traffic along the route" (OR: 2.07; 95% CI: 1.47-2.93). Psychosocial barriers were found in both sexes. CONCLUSIONS: Psychosocial and personal barriers were more positively associated with passive commuting than environmental barriers. Interventions at the university are necessary to improve the perception of AC and encourage personal organization to travel more actively.
Entities:
Keywords:
active; active behavior; active transport; college; commuting; physical activity
Authors: Joseph J Murphy; Ciaran MacDonncha; Marie H Murphy; Niamh Murphy; Alan M Nevill; Catherine B Woods Journal: J Phys Act Health Date: 2019-04-11
Authors: Ximena Díaz-Martínez; Fanny Petermann; Ana María Leiva; Alex Garrido-Méndez; Carlos Salas-Bravo; María Adela Martínez; Ana María Labraña; Eliana Duran; Pedro Valdivia-Moral; María Luisa Zagalaz; Felipe Poblete-Valderrama; Cristian Alvarez; Carlos Celis-Morales Journal: Rev Med Chil Date: 2018-05 Impact factor: 0.553
Authors: Paddy C Dempsey; Chuck E Matthews; S Ghazaleh Dashti; Aiden R Doherty; Audrey Bergouignan; Eline H van Roekel; David W Dunstan; Nicholas J Wareham; Thomas E Yates; Katrien Wijndaele; Brigid M Lynch Journal: J Phys Act Health Date: 2020-01-01
Authors: Ximena Palma-Leal; Fernando Rodríguez-Rodríguez; Pablo Campos-Garzón; Antonio Castillo-Paredes; Palma Chillón Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2021-11-29 Impact factor: 3.390
Authors: Antonio Castillo-Paredes; Beatriz Iglésias; Claudio Farías-Valenzuela; Irina Kovalskys; Georgina Gómez; Attilio Rigotti; Lilia Yadira Cortés; Martha Cecilia Yépez García; Rossina G Pareja; Marianella Herrera-Cuenca; Mauro Fisberg; Clemens Drenowatz; Paloma Ferrero-Hernández; Gerson Ferrari Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2022-10-06 Impact factor: 4.614