Ståhl T, Rütten A, Nutbeam D, Bauman A, Kannas L, Abel T, Lüschen G, Rodriquez D J, Vinck J, van der Zee J
University of Jyväskylä, Department of Health Sciences, Finland.
Soc Sci Med. 2001 Jan;52(1):1-10. doi: 10.1016/s0277-9536(00)00116-7.
Physically active lifestyles are regularly associated with improved health and quality of life. Differences in lifestyles in society can partly be understood through the differences in the social and physical environment. This study examines the relationships between reported physical activity, and the extent of perceived support for physical activity in the physical and policy environment (e.g. facilities, programmes and other opportunities), and in the social environment. The data for the study come from a cross-cultural health policy study called MAREPS. In total, 3342 adults, 18 years or older, from six countries (Belgium, Finland, Germany, The Netherlands, Spain, Switzerland) were interviewed via telephone. Respondents were categorised as active or inactive according to self-reported physical activity. Social environmental factors and physical and policy environmental factors were also assessed. The analysis of the data was informed by social cognitive theory, although the study was not originally designed for this purpose. Sixty-eight percent of females and 70% of males were active. The proportions of active and inactive varied by countries to a great extent. The strongest independent predictor of being physically active was social environment. Those who perceived low social support from their personal environment (i.e. family, friends, school and workplace) were more than twice as likely to be sedentary compared to those who reported high social support from their personal environment. Specific knowledge of the programmes and actions for physical activity and sport was also a strong predictor of being active. A supportive physical and policy environment was not associated with participation in physical activity as strongly as had been anticipated. The variation between countries was stronger predictor of being active than the physical and policy environment variables. This study generates the hypotheses and raises the questions that in a preliminary way, there appears to be some relationships between aspects of physical and social environment and physical activity participation. However, future research is needed to refine and clarify this.
积极的生活方式通常与健康状况和生活质量的改善相关。社会中生活方式的差异可以部分地通过社会和自然环境的差异来理解。本研究考察了所报告的身体活动与在自然和政策环境（如设施、项目及其他机会）以及社会环境中对身体活动的感知支持程度之间的关系。该研究的数据来自一项名为MAREPS的跨文化健康政策研究。总共对来自六个国家（比利时、芬兰、德国、荷兰、西班牙、瑞士）的3342名18岁及以上的成年人进行了电话访谈。根据自我报告的身体活动情况，将受访者分为活跃或不活跃两类。同时还评估了社会环境因素以及自然和政策环境因素。尽管该研究最初并非为此目的而设计，但数据分析是依据社会认知理论进行的。68%的女性和70%的男性为活跃状态。活跃和不活跃的比例在不同国家之间差异很大。身体活跃的最强独立预测因素是社会环境。那些认为从个人环境（即家庭、朋友、学校和工作场所）获得的社会支持较低的人，久坐不动的可能性是那些报告从个人环境获得高社会支持的人的两倍多。对身体活动和体育运动项目及行动的具体了解也是活跃状态的一个有力预测因素。一个支持性的自然和政策环境与身体活动参与之间的关联并不像预期的那么强。国家之间的差异比自然和政策环境变量更能预测活跃状态。本研究提出了一些假设并引发了一些问题，即初步看来，自然和社会环境的某些方面与身体活动参与之间似乎存在一些关系。然而，需要未来的研究来完善和澄清这一点。
