OBJECTIVE: To examine the promotion of physical activity by general practitioners (GPs) and practice nurses (PNs). METHODS: A questionnaire that examined the types of barriers and the levels of their influence as well as stage of change for activity promotion and for personal behaviour was mailed to 846 subjects. RESULTS: The return rate exceeded 70% in each group with a high proportion (69%) of GPs and PNs reporting that they regularly promote physical activity with their patients. GPs were less likely to regularly promote physical activity with their patients if they indicated lack of time as a barrier (odds ratio (OR) = 0.73, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.58 to 0.93) or lack of incentives (OR = 0.74, 95% CI 0.59 to 0.94), and more likely to promote exercise if they themselves were regular exercisers (OR = 3.19, 95% CI 1.96 to 5.18). However, for PNs longer consultation times (by 1.5 to 2 minutes) had a higher likelihood of producing regular promotion of activity (OR = 1.61, 95% CI 1.02 to 1.62). For PNs personal physical activity stage was the strongest significant predictor of promotion level, but with a stronger effect (OR = 4.77, 95% CI 1.48 to 15.35) than in the GPs. CONCLUSION: The main finding is that GPs in the action or maintenance stage of changing their own physical activity are three times more likely to regularly promote the same behaviour in their patients than those in the other stages; for PNs the same difference quadruples the likelihood of them promoting physical activity. Professional readiness to change is influenced by known system barriers in GPs, and not in PNs, but is more strongly predicted by personal physical activity behaviour in both groups.
OBJECTIVE: To examine the promotion of physical activity by general practitioners (GPs) and practice nurses (PNs). METHODS: A questionnaire that examined the types of barriers and the levels of their influence as well as stage of change for activity promotion and for personal behaviour was mailed to 846 subjects. RESULTS: The return rate exceeded 70% in each group with a high proportion (69%) of GPs and PNs reporting that they regularly promote physical activity with their patients. GPs were less likely to regularly promote physical activity with their patients if they indicated lack of time as a barrier (odds ratio (OR) = 0.73, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.58 to 0.93) or lack of incentives (OR = 0.74, 95% CI 0.59 to 0.94), and more likely to promote exercise if they themselves were regular exercisers (OR = 3.19, 95% CI 1.96 to 5.18). However, for PNs longer consultation times (by 1.5 to 2 minutes) had a higher likelihood of producing regular promotion of activity (OR = 1.61, 95% CI 1.02 to 1.62). For PNs personal physical activity stage was the strongest significant predictor of promotion level, but with a stronger effect (OR = 4.77, 95% CI 1.48 to 15.35) than in the GPs. CONCLUSION: The main finding is that GPs in the action or maintenance stage of changing their own physical activity are three times more likely to regularly promote the same behaviour in their patients than those in the other stages; for PNs the same difference quadruples the likelihood of them promoting physical activity. Professional readiness to change is influenced by known system barriers in GPs, and not in PNs, but is more strongly predicted by personal physical activity behaviour in both groups.
Authors: G F Fletcher; S N Blair; J Blumenthal; C Caspersen; B Chaitman; S Epstein; H Falls; E S Froelicher; V F Froelicher; I L Pina Journal: Circulation Date: 1992-07 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: B H Marcus; M G Goldstein; A Jette; L Simkin-Silverman; B M Pinto; F Milan; R Washburn; K Smith; W Rakowski; C E Dubé Journal: Prev Med Date: 1997 May-Jun Impact factor: 4.018
Authors: Fatima Cody Stanford; Martin W Durkin; James Rast Stallworth; Caroline Keller Powell; Mary Beth Poston; Steven N Blair Journal: J Prim Prev Date: 2014-06
Authors: Johanna M Huijg; Winifred A Gebhardt; Marieke W Verheijden; Nicolette van der Zouwe; Juriena D de Vries; Barend J C Middelkoop; Mathilde R Crone Journal: Int J Behav Med Date: 2015-02
Authors: Esther M F van Sluijs; Mireille N M van Poppel; Jos W R Twisk; Marijke J Chin A Paw; Karen J Calfas; Willem van Mechelen Journal: Am J Public Health Date: 2005-10 Impact factor: 9.308
Authors: John D Omura; Moriah P Bellissimo; Kathleen B Watson; Fleetwood Loustalot; Janet E Fulton; Susan A Carlson Journal: Prev Med Date: 2017-12-27 Impact factor: 4.018
Authors: Simon Murphy; Larry Raisanen; Graham Moore; Rhiannon Tudor Edwards; Pat Linck; Nefyn Williams; Nafees Ud Din; Janine Hale; Chris Roberts; Elaine McNaish; Laurence Moore Journal: BMC Public Health Date: 2010-06-18 Impact factor: 3.295
Authors: Rachel A Laws; Upali W Jayasinghe; Mark F Harris; Anna M Williams; Gawaine Powell Davies; Lynn A Kemp Journal: BMC Public Health Date: 2009-05-29 Impact factor: 3.295