| Literature DB >> 35864489 |
Ali Khani Jeihooni1, Fatemeh Jafari2, Ramin Shiraly3, Tayebeh Rakhshani4, Abdolrahim Asadollahi5, Hamed Karami2.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic restrictions curtailed physical activity. The current study applied an integrated Theory of Planned Behavior to identify the determinants of physical activity behavior and the processes involved in the COVID-19 pandemic.Entities:
Keywords: COVID-19; Physical activity; Structural equation modeling (SEM); Theory of planned behavior (TPB)
Mesh:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35864489 PMCID: PMC9303048 DOI: 10.1186/s12889-022-13797-3
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Public Health ISSN: 1471-2458 Impact factor: 4.135
Demographic characteristics of samples
| Variables | Physical activity | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Nothing | ≤ 3 days | 4–5 days | ≤ 6 days | ||
| Male | 513 (49.1%) | 479 (45.9%) | 29 (2.8%) | 23 (2.2%) | 0.474 |
| Female | 678 (46.6%) | 690 (47.4%) | 52 (3.6%) | 36 (2.5%) | |
| Elementary | 26 (44.8%) | 29 (50%) | 2 (3.4%) | 1 (1.7%) | |
| 2nd School | 372 (47.1%) | 369 (46.8%) | 27 (3.4%) | 21 (2.7%) | |
| High School | 594 (48.5%) | 565 (46.1%) | 40 (3.3%) | 27 (2.2%) | |
| Graduated | 199 (46.6%) | 206 (48.2%) | 12 (2.8%) | 10 (2.3%) | 0.995 |
| Employee | 194 (43.1%) | 231 (51.3%) | 16 (3.6%) | 9 (2%) | |
| worker | 97 (48%) | 93 (46%) | 10 (5%) | 2 (1%) | |
| free | 370 (48.9%) | 341 (45.1%) | 26 (3.4%) | 19 (2.5%) | |
| Housewife | 297 (47.7%) | 293 (47%) | 17 (2.7%) | 16 (2.6%) | |
| other | 233 (49.7%) | 211 (45%) | 12 (2.6%) | 13 (2.8%) | 0.526 |
| Non-maried | 197 (45.5%) | 212 (49%) | 10 (2.3%) | 14 (3.2%) | 0.247 |
| Married | 994 (48.1%) | 957 (46.3%) | 71 (3.4%) | 45 (2.2%) | |
| ≤ 104 US$ | 500 (48.2%) | 483 (46.5%) | 29 (2.8%) | 26 (2.5%) | 0.712 |
| ≥ 105 US$ | 691 (47.3%) | 686 (46.9%) | 52 (3.6%) | 33 (2.3%) | |
| ≤ 70 | 411 (50.3%) | 354 (43.3%) | 27 (3.3%) | 25 (3.1%) | |
| 71–100 | 421 (45.6%) | 460 (49.8%) | 27 (2.9%) | 16 (1.7%) | |
| ≤ 101 | 359 (47.4%) | 354 (46.7%) | 27 (3.6%) | 18 (2.4%) | 0.286 |
| Balcony | 159 (50.5%) | 143 (45.4%) | 8 (2.5%) | 5 (1.6%) | |
| Terrace | 839 (47%) | 843 (47.2%) | 68 (3.8%) | 35 (2%) | |
| Garden | 137 (48.1%) | 128 (44.9%) | 4 (1.4%) | 16 (5.6%) | |
| Nothing | 43 (45.3%) | 50 (52.6%) | 0 (0%) | 2 (2.1%) | 0.004 |
Fixed Effect ANOVA Results for TPB Constructs
| Ffixed Factors | Effect Sizea | Partial η | Sig. | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Intention | |||||
| Attitude | 2488 | 9.551 | .241 | [.184, .351] | .000* |
| SN | 2490 | 5.607 | .220 | [.137, .281] | .000* |
| PBC | 2490 | 5.127 | .218 | [.134, .288] | .000* |
| 2. Physical Activity | |||||
| Intention | 2487 | 721.39 | .777 | [.654, .891] | .000** |
aUsing Eta square (η), p < .05, p < .01
Fig. 1Effectiveness of intention on physical activiy of samples (n = 2500)
Result of three construct of theoretical model along with demographic variables by SEM
| Examined Paths | Mean | SD | Standardized Path Coefitients |
|---|---|---|---|
| 9.38 | 3.07 | ||
| ATT ➔ INT | −0.37 | ||
| 9.27 | 2.03 | ||
| SN ➔ INT | 0.45 | ||
| 9.32 | 2.05 | ||
| PBC ➔ INT | −0.48 | ||
| 12.29 | 2.35 | ||
| INT ➔ Phy.Act. | 0.78 | ||
| Level 1 | 1191 (47.6) | ||
| Level 2 | 1169 (46.8) | – | |
| Level 3 | 140 (5.6) | ||
| Chi2 = 108.6, df = 25, | |||
Note: ATT Attitude, SN Subjective norms, PBC Perceived behavioral control, and INT = intention
* p ≤ 0.05
aLevel 1 = No physical activity, level 2 = Less than 3 days per week, and level 3 = More than 4 days per week
bFrequencies (%)
Fig. 2Final Structural Equation Model of the Study (n = 2500). Abbreviations: ATT = Attitude, SN = Subjective Norms, PBC = Perceived Behavior Control, INT = Intention