Mealy Rachel N, Richardson Laura A, Miller Brian, Smith Melissa, Juvancic-Heltzel Judith A
School of Sport Science and Wellness Education, The University of Akron, Akron, OH, USA.
Int J Exerc Sci. 2019 Mar 1;12(3):505-514. doi: 10.70252/GVFF3004. eCollection 2019.
The purpose of this exploratory study was twofold: to determine whether exercise science and medical students are aware of the Exercise is Medicine (EIM) program and to construct a tool that would permit assessment of EIM variables with students enrolled in both programs. The study consisted of a quantitative, cross-sectional design, using a self-report electronic questionnaire. An Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) using principal component analysis extraction method with Varimax factor rotation was employed to validate the survey instrument based on the expected constructs, which posited five (5) contending factors: Value, Familiarity, Preparedness, Curricular Perceptions, and Opinions. A pairwise comparison was then performed to compare elements of the EIM scale identified from the factor analysis by student type (medical and exercise science student) using multiple independent sample -tests. Based on the pairwise comparisons, there were statistically significant differences of all EIM factors by student type with the exception of Opinions ( = 0.109). Based on the trends observed in the data, exercise science students had a more positive report for each EIM factor compared to medical students. These findings suggest a discrepancy in the delivery, acceptance, and implementation of the EIM initiative between exercise professionals and medical healthcare providers. Future investigation is warranted to validate this experimental instrument and study the differences in EIM factors among current medical and exercise professionals.
一是确定运动科学专业和医学专业的学生是否了解“运动即良药”（EIM）项目；二是构建一种工具，用于评估参与这两个专业项目的学生的EIM变量。该研究采用定量横断面设计，使用自我报告电子问卷。采用主成分分析提取法和方差最大化因子旋转进行探索性因子分析（EFA），以基于预期结构验证调查工具，该结构假定有五个相互竞争的因子：价值、熟悉度、准备情况、课程认知和意见。然后进行成对比较，使用多个独立样本检验按学生类型（医学专业和运动科学专业学生）比较从因子分析中确定的EIM量表的各个要素。基于成对比较，除意见因子外（p = 0.109），按学生类型划分的所有EIM因子均存在统计学显著差异。根据数据中观察到的趋势，与医学专业学生相比，运动科学专业学生对每个EIM因子的报告更为积极。这些发现表明，运动专业人员和医疗保健提供者在EIM倡议的推广、接受和实施方面存在差异。有必要进行进一步调查，以验证该实验工具，并研究当前医学专业和运动专业人员在EIM因子方面的差异。
