Droomers M, Schrijvers C T, van de Mheen H, Mackenbach J P
Department of Public Health, Erasmus University Rotterdam, Netherlands.
Soc Sci Med. 1998 Dec;47(11):1665-76. doi: 10.1016/s0277-9536(98)00272-x.
In this study we aim to explain educational differences in leisure-time physical inactivity in terms of psychosocial and material factors. Cross-sectional data were obtained from the baseline of the Dutch GLOBE study in 1991, including 2598 men and women, aged 15-74 years. Physical inactivity during leisure time was defined as not participating in any activity, such as sports, gardening, walking or cycling. Psychosocial factors included in the study were coping resources, personality, and stressors. Material factors were financial situation, employment status, and living conditions. Logistic regression models were used to calculate educational differences in physical inactivity. Physical inactivity was more prevalent in lower educational groups. Psychosocial factors related to physical inactivity were locus of control, parochialism, neuroticism, emotional social support, active problem focussing, optimistic and palliative coping styles. Material factors associated with physical inactivity were income, employment status and financial problems. All correlates of physical inactivity were unequally distributed over educational groups, except optimistic and palliative coping. Personality and coping style were the main contributors to the observed educational differences in physical inactivity. That is to say, parochialism, locus of control, neuroticism and active problem focussing explained about half of elevated odds ratios of physical inactivity in the lower educational groups. The material factors, equivalent income and employment status explained about 40% of the elevated odds ratios. Psychosocial and material correlates together reduced the odds ratios of lower educational groups by on average 75%. These results have practical consequences for the design of more effective interventions to promote physical activity. In particular, personality and coping style of risk groups, such as lower educational groups, should be taken into consideration at the future development of these interventions, as well as inequalities in material restrictions related to engaging in physical activity. Supplementary interventions focussing on childhood conditions which, partly, influence both personality and physical inactivity may also contribute to a reduction of socio-economic differences in physical inactivity.
在本研究中，我们旨在从心理社会和物质因素方面解释休闲时间身体不活动方面的教育差异。横断面数据取自1991年荷兰全球生活条件和福祉研究（GLOBE）的基线，包括2598名年龄在15 - 74岁之间的男性和女性。休闲时间身体不活动被定义为不参与任何活动，如运动、园艺、散步或骑自行车。本研究纳入的心理社会因素包括应对资源、人格和压力源。物质因素为财务状况、就业状况和生活条件。采用逻辑回归模型计算身体不活动方面的教育差异。身体不活动在低教育水平群体中更为普遍。与身体不活动相关的心理社会因素有控制点、狭隘主义、神经质、情感社会支持、积极关注问题、乐观和姑息应对方式。与身体不活动相关的物质因素有收入、就业状况和财务问题。除了乐观和姑息应对方式外，身体不活动的所有相关因素在不同教育水平群体中的分布并不均衡。人格和应对方式是观察到的身体不活动方面教育差异的主要促成因素。也就是说，狭隘主义、控制点、神经质和积极关注问题解释了低教育水平群体中身体不活动升高的比值比的约一半。物质因素，即同等收入和就业状况解释了升高的比值比的约40%。心理社会和物质相关因素共同将低教育水平群体的比值比平均降低了75%。这些结果对于设计更有效的促进身体活动的干预措施具有实际意义。特别是，在这些干预措施的未来发展中，应考虑风险群体（如低教育水平群体）的人格和应对方式，以及与参与身体活动相关的物质限制方面的不平等。关注童年状况的补充干预措施，这些状况部分会影响人格和身体不活动，也可能有助于减少身体不活动方面的社会经济差异。
