Bennie Jason A, Thornton Lukar E, van Uffelen Jannique G Z, Banting Lauren K, Biddle Stuart J H
Active Living and Public Health Program, Institute of Sport, Exercise and Active Living (ISEAL), Victoria University, Melbourne, VIC, Australia.
Centre for Physical Activity and Nutrition Research, School of Exercise and Nutrition Sciences, Deakin University, Melbourne, VIC, Australia.
BMC Public Health. 2016 Jul 11;16:551. doi: 10.1186/s12889-016-3250-3.
Leisure-time physical activity and strength training participation levels are low and socioeconomically distributed. Fitness trainers (e.g. gym/group instructors) may have a role in increasing these participation levels. However, it is not known whether the training location and characteristics of Australian fitness trainers vary between areas that differ in socioeconomic status.
In 2014, a sample of 1,189 Australian trainers completed an online survey with questions about personal and fitness industry-related characteristics (e.g. qualifications, setting, and experience) and postcode of their usual training location. The Australian Bureau of Statistics 'Index of Relative Socioeconomic Disadvantage' (IRSD) was matched to training location and used to assess where fitness professionals trained and whether their experience, qualification level and delivery methods differed by area-level disadvantage. Linear regression analysis was used to examine the relationship between IRSD score and selected characteristics adjusting for covariates (e.g. sex, age).
Overall, 47 % of respondents worked in areas within the three least-disadvantaged deciles. In contrast, only 14.8 % worked in the three most-disadvantaged deciles. In adjusted regression models, fitness industry qualification was positively associated with a higher IRSD score (i.e. working in the least-disadvantaged areas) (Cert III: ref; Cert IV β:13.44 [95 % CI 3.86-23.02]; Diploma β:15.77 [95 % CI: 2.17-29.37]; Undergraduate β:23.14 [95 % CI: 9.41-36.86]).
Fewer Australian fitness trainers work in areas with high levels of socioeconomic disadvantaged areas than in areas with low levels of disadvantage. A higher level of fitness industry qualifications was associated with working in areas with lower levels of disadvantage. Future research should explore the effectiveness of providing incentives that encourage more fitness trainers and those with higher qualifications to work in more socioeconomically disadvantaged areas.
休闲体育活动和力量训练的参与度较低，且存在社会经济分布差异。健身教练（如健身房/团体运动教练）可能在提高这些参与度方面发挥作用。然而，尚不清楚澳大利亚健身教练的培训地点和特点在社会经济地位不同的地区之间是否存在差异。
2014年，1189名澳大利亚教练参与了一项在线调查，调查内容包括个人及与健身行业相关的特点（如资质、工作场所和经验）以及他们通常培训地点的邮政编码。澳大利亚统计局的“相对社会经济劣势指数”（IRSD）与培训地点相匹配，用于评估健身专业人员的培训地点，以及他们的经验、资质水平和授课方式是否因地区劣势程度而有所不同。采用线性回归分析来检验IRSD得分与选定特征之间的关系，并对协变量（如性别、年龄）进行调整。
总体而言，47%的受访者在三个最不具劣势的十分位数区域内工作。相比之下，只有14.8%的人在三个最具劣势的十分位数区域内工作。在调整后的回归模型中，健身行业资质与较高的IRSD得分呈正相关（即在最不具劣势的地区工作）（三级证书：参照；四级证书β：13.44 [95%置信区间3.86 - 23.02]；文凭β：15.77 [95%置信区间：2.17 - 29.37]；本科β：23.14 [95%置信区间：9.41 - 36.86]）。
与处于低劣势水平地区相比，在社会经济劣势水平高的地区工作的澳大利亚健身教练较少。较高水平的健身行业资质与在劣势水平较低的地区工作相关。未来的研究应探索提供激励措施的有效性，以鼓励更多健身教练以及资质较高的教练在社会经济劣势更明显的地区工作。
