Scheduled for Research Coordinating Board Poster Session I, Thursday, March 15, 2007, 12:45 PM - 2:15 PM, Convention Center: Exhibit Hall Poster Area II


Do Barriers and Incentives to Physical Activity Differ by Occupational Status? A Qualitative Approach

Gena M. Fletcher1, Lorie Domina1, Timothy K. Behrens1, Lynne H. Durrant2 and Anita Leopardi1, (1)University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT, (2)University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT

While a lack of physical activity (PA) is one of the most modifiable causes of chronic disease, the majority of Americans do not accumulate enough PA to offset chronic disease and provide health benefits. Few researchers have qualitatively examined why this discrepancy exists. Thus, the purpose of this study was to qualitatively examine barriers and motivational factors to participation in PA programs, stratified by occupational status in a cohort of employees at a large city government in the intermountain western USA. Participants were recruited through a personalized letter of invitation, email, a website announcement on the city webpage, flyers, and word of mouth. Those responding to participate were placed into focus groups and were stratified by sedentary and labor intensive occupations. During the focus groups, open-ended questions were asked concerning barriers and motivational factors influencing participation in PA programs. These questions were developed by the researchers from commonly reported barriers and motivational factors indicated within the literature base. Participant responses were audio-recorded and transcribed verbatim. Data were analyzed with open and axial coding techniques using QSR NUD*IST version N6. The sample consisted of 60 employees comprising nine focus groups (sedentary occupations: n = 29, 5 focus groups, age = 44.44 ± 8.77 years, 44.8% male, 90.3% Caucasian; labor intensive occupations: n = 31, 4 focus groups, age = 39.16 ± 8.06 years, 93.5% male, 82.8% Caucasian). While social support and self-motivation were the largest motivational influences for both occupational categories, motivational differences emerged between groups. Sedentary workers were more motivated externally, while labor intensive workers were not. Additionally, a higher value was placed on appearance, quick results, and weight loss by sedentary workers than labor intensive workers. Both occupational categories noted time as being the most significant barrier to being active, while other common barriers included lack of convenience and lack of motivation. Further, long work hours and coordinating schedules were identified as barriers more often by sedentary workers than labor intensive workers. Interestingly, while labor intensive workers voiced that they would be less likely to participate in a worksite wellness program, they indicated PA as more of a priority than did sedentary workers. The results of this study indicate that while there are similarities in barriers and motivational factors towards PA participation between labor intensive and sedentary occupations, there are also eminent differences between occupational groups. These findings are important for health educators planning PA interventions in worksite settings.
Keyword(s): adult physical activity/fitness, health promotion, worksite

Back to the 2007 AAHPERD National Convention and Exposition (March 13 -- 17, 2007)