Content uploaded by Stewart Trost
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Stewart Trost on Apr 05, 2016
Content may be subject to copyright.
Correlates of adults’ participation in physical
activity: review and update
STEWART G. TROST, NEVILLE OWEN, ADRIAN E. BAUMAN, JAMES F. SALLIS, and WENDY BROWN
School of Human Movement Studies; School of Population Health; University of Queensland, AUSTRALIA; School of
Community Medicine, University of New South Wales, AUSTRALIA; and Department of Psychology, San Diego State
University, San Diego, CA
ABSTRACT
TROST, S. G., N. OWEN, A. E. BAUMAN, J. F. SALLIS, and W. BROWN. Correlates of adults’ participation in physical activity:
review and update. Med. Sci. Sports Exerc., Vol. 34, No. 12, pp. 1996–2001, 2002. Purpose: To review and update the evidence
relating to the personal, social, and environmental factors associated with physical activity (PA) in adults. Methods: Systematic review
of the peer-reviewed literature to identify papers published between 1998 and 2000 with PA (and including exercise and exercise
adherence). Qualitative reports or case studies were not included. Results: Thirty-eight new studies were located. Most confirmed the
existence of factors already known to be correlates of PA. Changes in status were noted in relation to the influence of marital status,
obesity, smoking, lack of time, past exercise behavior, and eight environmental variables. New studies were located which focused on
previously understudied population groups such as minorities, middle and older aged adults, and the disabled. Conclusion: The newly
reported studies tend to take a broader “ecological” approach to understanding the correlates of PA and are more focused on
environmental factors. There remains a need to better understand environmental influences and the factors that influence different types
of PA. As most of the work in this field still relies on cross-sectional studies, longitudinal and intervention studies will be required if
causal relationships are to be inferred. Key Words: DETERMINANTS, EXERCISE, LITERATURE REVIEW, DEMOGRAPHIC,
PSYCHOLOGICAL, SOCIAL, ENVIRONMENTAL
I
ncreasing participation in regular physical activity is a
national health priority for many industrialized nations
(13,44). Interventions are most effective when they alter
the underlying variables that influence physical activity.
Thus, studying “determinants” or correlates of physical ac-
tivity is an important prerequisite for designing relevant
policies and effective programs. Studies to date show the
physical activity habits of adults to be associated with fac-
tors from multiple domains (37).
The goal of this paper is to review and update the research
base on factors associated with physical activity in adults.
For the purpose of highlighting recent progress and com-
paring current knowledge to the conclusions of earlier re-
views, we also provide a summary in tabular form of those
previously published reviews (17–19,36). We highlight the
findings of studies published since the most recent compre-
hensive review, using methods and reporting procedures
consistent with that review. The progress made is consid-
ered and priorities for future research are identified. Given
the strong emphasis that national physical activity policy
documents now place on the provision of opportunities for
being physically active, we pay particular attention to the
new evidence on environmental factors related to physical
activity.
EARLIER REVIEWS OF THE FINDINGS OF
PHYSICAL ACTIVITY DETERMINANTS STUDIES
The most recent review of the adult physical activity
“determinants” literature by Sallis and Owen (36) included
45 new studies published between 1992 and 1997. That
review updated previous comprehensive reviews (17–19).
Consequently, the findings from the approximately 300
studies on the determinants of adult physical activity were
summarized. The authors concluded generally that adults’
participation in physical activity is influenced by a diverse
range of personal, social, and environmental factors. Of the
six classes of “determinants” examined, individual-level
variables such as socioeconomic status and perceived self-
efficacy demonstrated the strongest and most consistent
associations with physical activity behavior. In contrast,
relatively few consistent positive or negative associations
were found with respect to variables classified as behavioral
attributes and skills, sociocultural influences, or physical
environmental influences. However, fewer variables had
been examined in these latter categories. The findings of the
Sallis and Owen review are summarized in Table 1.
REVIEW AND UPDATE OF STUDIES PUBLISHED
SINCE 1998
A search of the literature was conducted using several
computer-based databases, including MEDLINE, PYSCHLIT, SO-
Address for correspondence: Stewart G. Trost, Ph.D., School of Human
Movement Studies, University of Queensland, Brisbane QLD 4072, Aus-
tralia; E-mail: strost@hms.uq.edu.au.
Submitted for publication May 2001.
Accepted for publication July 2002.
0195-9131/02/3412-1996/$3.00/0
MEDICINE & SCIENCE IN SPORTS & EXERCISE
®
Copyright © 2002 by the American College of Sports Medicine
DOI: 10.1249/01.MSS.0000038974.76900.92
1996
CIAL SCIENCE INDEX, and SPORTS DISCUS. Manual searches were
also made using the reference lists from recovered articles.
Key words used for the computer searches were physical
activity, physical inactivity, exercise, determinants, corre-
lates of physical activity, survey, health education, health
behavior, and health promotion. Studies were included if the
TABLE 1. Updated summary of the factors associated with overall physical activity in adults.
Determinant
Sallis and
Owen (36)
Updated
Review References Change?
Demographic and biological factors
Age ⫺⫺ ⫺⫺ 1,2,6,7,12,23,25,26,27,34,35,38,39,40,41,45
Blue-collar occupation ⫺⫺39
Childless ⫹⫹41
Education ⫹⫹ ⫹⫹ 6,12,23,26,27,34,35,38,39,41,45
Gender (male) ⫹⫹ ⫹⫹ 1,2,7,12,25,34,35,38,39
Hereditary ⫹⫹ ⫹⫹
High risk for heart disease ⫺⫺12,35
Income/socioeconomic status ⫹⫹ ⫹⫹ 1,3,4,6,7,12,35,38,39
Injury history ⫹⫹40
Marital status (married) 0 ⫺ 2,5,6,23,24,39,41 ⻫
Overweight/obesity 00 ⫺⫺ 6,28,35,38,40,41 ⻫
Race/ethnicity (nonwhite) ⫺⫺ ⫺⫺ 6,12,23,40,41,45
Psychological, cognitive, and emotional factors
Attitudes 0 00 2,3,4,14,16,22,29,46 ⻫
Barriers to exercise ⫺⫺ ⫺⫺ 2,3,11,23,26,30,41,45
Control over exercise ⫹⫹3,4,16,22,29,40
Enjoyment of exercise ⫹⫹ ⫹⫹ 2,25
Expect benefits ⫹⫹ ⫹⫹ 12,30,33,40
Health locus of control 0 0
Intention to exercise ⫹⫹ ⫹⫹ 3,4,14,16,22,29
Knowledge of health and exercise 00 00 12,26,35
Lack of time ⫺⫺⫺2,23,41 ⻫
Mood disturbance ⫺⫺ ⫺⫺
Normative beliefs 00 00 3,4,14,16,22,24
Perceived health or fitness ⫹⫹ ⫹⫹ 2,7,11,12,23,41
Personality variables ⫹⫹14,15
Poor body image ⫺⫺
Psychological health ⫹⫹
Self-efficacy ⫹⫹ ⫹⫹ 2,7,9,11,12,30,31,33,40,41,42,46
Self-motivation ⫹⫹ ⫹⫹ 4,41
Self-schemata for exercise ⫹⫹ ⫹⫹ 46
Stage of change ⫹⫹ ⫹⫹ 33,42
Stress 0 0 7,33
Susceptibility to illness/seriousness of illness 00 00 7,35
Value of exercise outcomes 0 0 7,8,33
Behavioral attributes and skills
Activity history during childhood/youth 00 0 43 ⻫
Activity history during adulthood ⫹⫹ ⫹⫹ 3,4,11,31
Alcohol 0 0 21
Contemporary exercise program 0 0
Dietary habits (quality) ⫹⫹ ⫹⫹ 6,21,26
Past exercise program ⫹⫹⫹3,4,11,22,31 ⻫
Processes of change ⫹⫹ ⫹⫹ 42
School sports 00 0 43 ⻫
Skills for coping with barriers ⫹⫹
Smoking 00 ⫺ 6,21,26,34,35,39,41 ⻫
Sports media use 0 0
Type A behavior pattern ⫹⫹
Decisional balance sheet ⫹⫹42
Social and cultural factors
Class size
Exercise models 0 0
Group cohesion
Past family influences 0 0
Physician influence ⫹⫹ ⫹⫹ 7,12
Social isolation ⫺⫺12,40
Social support from friends/peers ⫹⫹ ⫹⫹ 2,8,9,16,20,25,41,45
Social support from spouse/family ⫹⫹ ⫹⫹ 2,9,16,20,26,41,45
Social support from staff/instructor
Physical environment factors
Access to facilities: actual ⫹⫹
Access to facilities: perceived 00 ⫹ 2,27 ⻫
Adequate lighting* 0 23,45 ⻫
Climate/season ⫺⫺ ⫺⫺ 1,23
Cost of programs 0 0 2,27
Disruptions in routine
Enjoyable scenery* ⫹ 1,23,45 ⻫
Frequently observe others exercising* ⫹ 2,23,45 ⻫
Heavy traffic* 0 23,45 ⻫
Home equipment 0 ⫹ 2,23 ⻫
High Crime rates in the region* 0 10,23,45 ⻫
Hilly terrain* ⫹ 23,44 ⻫
Neighborhood safety* ⫹ 10,23,34,45 ⻫
Presence of sidewalks* 0 2,23,45 ⻫
Satisfaction with facilities* ⫹ 2,27 ⻫
Unattended dogs* 0 23,44 ⻫
Urban location* ⫺ 1,5,6,23,34,45 ⻫
Physical activity characteristics
Intensity ⫺⫺
Perceived effort ⫺⫺ ⫺⫺
*, variable not examined in previous reviews; ⫹⫹, repeatedly documented positive association with physical activity; ⫹, weak or mixed evidence of positive association with physical
activity; 00, repeatedly documented lack of association with physical activity; 0, weak or mixed evidence of no association with physical activity; ⫺⫺, repeatedly documented negative
association with physical activity; ⫺, weak or mixed evidence of negative association with physical activity.
Blank spaces indicate no data available.
CORRELATES OF ADULT PHYSICAL ACTIVITY Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise
姞
1997
dependent variable was physical activity, exercise, or exer-
cise adherence, and if the study included participants aged
18 yr or older. Studies in which the dependent variable was
aerobic fitness, intention, self-efficacy, or other intermediate
(nonbehavioral) measures were not included. Qualitative
reports or case studies were not included. Because this paper
is an update on the most recent review, 1998 was chosen as
starting point. Thirty-eight new studies published from 1998
to September 2000 were included in the review. Sample size
for these studies ranged from 56 to 16,178,with a median of
1088. Notably, only 7 of the 38 studies (20.5%) utilized
longitudinal study designs. None used objective measures of
physical activity—all relied on self-report or attendance
records. The self-report measures used in the new studies
were comparable to those included in the 1998 review.
Instruments ranged from single item global assessments to
detailed activity inventories. The majority of studies focused
on leisure time activity. In studies that reported multiple
correlation coefficients, the proportion of variance ac-
counted for ranged from 3% to 49.5%, with a average of
21.2% ⫾ 15%.
To be consistent with the approach taken by previous
reviews (17–19,36), factors associated with physical activity
were classified as either a) demographic and biological; b)
psychological, cognitive, and emotional; c) behavioral at-
tributes and skills; d) social and cultural; e) physical envi-
ronmental; or f) physical activity characteristics. Because
only three new studies focused on adherence to structured
exercise programs, the findings were summarized under the
single heading of “overall physical activity.” Notably, the
factors associated with adherence to structured exercise
programs were also significant correlates of overall physical
activity. Findings are summarized in Table 1.
DEMOGRAPHIC AND BIOLOGICAL FACTORS
Age and gender continued to be the two most consistent
demographic correlates of physical activity behavior in
adults. In studies that included men and women and that had
sufficient age diversity to examine age-related trends, phys-
ical activity participation was consistently higher in men
than in women and was inversely associated with age
(1,2,6,7,12,23,25–27,31,34,35,38–41,45) Socioeconomic
status, occupational status, and educational attainment were
also consistent determinants of physical activity behavior
(1,3,4,6,12,23,26,27,34,35,38,39,41,45). However, one
study conducted in Australia found that inclusion of occu-
pational and home activity eliminated the positive associa-
tion between physical activity and occupational status in
men. Among women, however, the inclusion of occupa-
tional and home activity had little effect on the association
between occupational status and physical activity (39).
Studies examining the association between marital status
and physical activity behavior produced mixed findings.
Some studies reported a positive association between mar-
ital status and physical activity participation (5,24,39), oth-
ers reported none (2,6,23,41). King et al. (24) examined the
effects of marital transitions on changes in physical activity
in a cohort of men and women from the Stanford Five-City
Project. The transition from a single to a married state
resulted in significant positive changes in physical activity
relative to individuals remaining single. In contrast, the
transition from a married to a single state did not influence
physical activity.
Overweight or obesity also emerged as a consistent neg-
ative influence on physical activity. Martinez-Gonzalez and
colleagues (28) estimated the association between leisure
time activity and weight status (BMI ⬎30 kg·m
⫺2
)ina
representative sample of the 15 member states of the Euro-
pean union. After controlling for hours spent sitting down,
age, sex, education, recent weight change, social class, mar-
ital status, country of origin, and smoking, individuals in the
highest quintile for leisure time physical activity were ap-
proximately 50% less likely than those in the lowest quintile
to be classified as obese. Similar findings were reported in
several other studies (6,35,38,40,41).
PSYCHOLOGICAL, COGNITIVE, AND EMOTIONAL
FACTORS
Twenty-four new studies examined intrapersonal vari-
ables including attitudes, barriers to physical activity,
enjoyment of physical activity, expected benefits, value
of physical activity outcomes, intentions, exercise self-
schemata (cognitive generalizations about the self in the
context of exercise or physical activity), perceived be-
havioral control, normative beliefs, knowledge of health
and exercise, perceived health, psychological health, self-
efficacy, self-motivation, and stage of change (2–4,
6–9,11,12,14–16,22,23,26,29–31,33,35,41,42,45,46).
Physical activity self-efficacy (a person’s confidence in
his or her ability to be physically active on a regular
basis) emerged as the most consistent correlate of phys-
ical activity behavior (2,7,9 11,12,30,31,33,40–42,46).
Oman and King (31) examined the influence of self-
efficacy perceptions in a cohort of healthy sedentary men
and women between the ages of 50 and 64. Among those
participating in a supervised home-based activity pro-
gram, baseline self-efficacy perceptions significantly pre-
dicted exercise adherence after 2 yr of follow-up. In a
population-based study of 449 Australians aged 60 yr and
older, Booth and colleagues (2) found self-efficacy to be
strongly related to physical activity participation.
Sternfeld et al. (41) investigated the correlates of physical
activity participation in an ethnically diverse sample of 2636
women enrolled in a North American health maintenance
organization. Women with high levels of physical activity
self-efficacy were two and four times more likely than were
those with low levels of self-efficacy to be in the highest
quartile for physical activity. However, Castro and col-
leagues (9) reported changes in self-efficacy and enjoyment
to be inversely associated with activity change in physical
activity behavior in 128 ethnic minority women.
Barriers to physical activity emerged as a strong influence
(2,3,11,23,26,30,41,45). Lian et al. (26) assessed correlates
of leisure-time activity in a population-based sample of
1998
Official Journal of the American College of Sports Medicine http://www.acsm-msse.org
elderly men and women. Barriers to physical activity—lack
of time, too tiring, too weak, fear of falling, bad weather, no
facilities, and lack of exercise partners emerged as the
strongest influence on leisure time activity for both men and
women. In the U.S. Women’s Determinants Study
(6,20,23,45), perceived barriers of fatigue, ill health, lack of
energy, and self-consciousness about appearance emerged
as significant correlates of physical activity.
Constructs from the Theory of Reasoned Action and
Theory of Planned Behavior (attitudes, normative beliefs,
perceived behavioral control, and intentions) received rela-
tively weak support (3,4,14,16,22,29). None of the studies
found attitudes or normative beliefs to be associated with
physical activity behavior. Consistent with previous re-
views, knowledge related to health and physical activity was
not associated with physical activity (12,26,35).
BEHAVIORAL ATTRIBUTES AND SKILLS
Dietary habits, past exercise behavior, smoking status,
and decisional balance were the only behavioral attributes
and skills examined in the new studies. Past exercise be-
havior or exercise habit emerged as a consistent predictor of
current activity status (3,4,11,22,31). There were positive
associations with healthy diet; however, only a small num-
ber of studies examined dietary behavior (6,21,26). With
one exception (41), being a smoker was inversely related to
physical activity (6,21,26,34,35,39).
SOCIAL AND CULTURAL FACTORS
Social support emerged as a consistently important cor-
relate. Every study that included a measure of social support
for physical activity found a significant positive association
(2,8,9,16,20,25,26,41,45). Leslie et al. (25) studied the as-
sociation with social support in a large sample of Australian
college students. Those reporting low levels of social sup-
port from either family or friends were 23–55% more likely
to be insufficiently active for health benefits than were those
with reporting high levels of support. In the U.S. Women’s
Determinants Study, social support was strongly associated
with physical activity. Women with high levels of physical
activity social support were approximately twice as likely as
were women with low support to be active at least 30 min
on 5 or more days of the week (20).
PHYSICAL ENVIRONMENT FACTORS
In contrast to the studies published before 1998, recently
published studies have included measures of physical envi-
ronmental factors. Although the strength and direction of the
associations with physical activity varied from study to
study, there was sufficient evidence to identify several new
environmental correlates of physical activity. These were
individual level influences such as exercise equipment at
home, access to facilities, satisfaction with recreation facil-
ities, and community level influences such as neighborhood
safety, hilly terrain, frequent observation of others engaging
in physical activity (modeling), and enjoyable scenery
(2,10,23,27,34,45).
In their study of Australian adults aged 60 yr and over,
Booth and colleagues (2) found that having friends who
participated regularly in physical activity, safe footpaths for
walking, and having access to a park were significantly
associated with regular physical activity. MacDougall et al.
(27) examined the influence of satisfaction with recreational
facilities on physical activity behavior. After controlling for
age, education, and health status, dissatisfaction with local
recreational facilities was significantly associated with a
greater risk of inactivity.
King et al. (23) examined the hypothesized environmental
determinants of physical activity in a national sample of U.S.
women aged 40 yr and older. Enjoyable scenery while exer-
cising and frequently observing others exercise were positively
associated with physical activity participation. Somewhat sur-
prisingly, the presence of hills and unattended dogs were as-
sociated with more rather than less activity. This finding high-
lights the difficulty associated with making unambiguous
inferences about perceived environmental influences from
cross-sectional studies. For example, those who are active
outdoors may be more aware of environmental barriers. In this
study (23), other neighborhood characteristics such as per-
ceived safety, presence of sidewalks, heavy traffic, adequate
lighting, and high crime were not associated with physical
activity status. In contrast, the Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention (10) reported a significant positive association be-
tween perceived neighborhood safety and physical activity.
Six new studies examined the impact of urban location on
physical activity participation (1,5,6,23,34,45). Notably, all
of them found physical activity to be significantly lower
among adults living in rural areas than in urban study
participants, although most of the studies assessed leisure-
time physical activity and not occupational physical activity.
DISCUSSION
Overall, the 38 new studies published between 1998 and
September 2000 contribute significantly to the understand-
ing of the factors associated with adults’ physical activity.
Somewhat surprisingly, most of the studies published during
this period continued to examine variables for which there
was very well established evidence of a negative or positive
association with physical activity behavior. However, nearly
all the new studies investigated previously understudied
populations such as minorities, middle- and older-aged
adults, and the disabled. The fact that similar results have
now been observed in these population groups is an impor-
tant development and has important implications for the
work of policy makers and public health professionals.
Despite the recommendations of earlier reviews
(17,18,19,36), only 7 of the 38 new studies used prospective
study designs (4,7–9,24,31,42). In general, the results of
these studies were consistent with the findings of cross-
sectional studies. There were, however, two notable excep-
tions. In the 10-yr follow-up of participants in the Stanford
Five City Project, King et al. (24) observed getting married
CORRELATES OF ADULT PHYSICAL ACTIVITY Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise
姞
1999
to be positively associated with physical activity over time.
This finding was in contrast to the majority of cross-sec-
tional studies in which marriage was inversely associated
with physical activity. Another study that opposed the find-
ings of cross-sectional studies was the study by Castro and
colleagues (9). In that study, changes in exercise self-effi-
cacy were inversely and not positively associated with
changes in walking for exercise.
There has been progress in the area of environmental
factors associated with activity, with the addition of 10 new
variables to this section of the summary table. This trend
reflects the increased use of ecological and broader health
promotion models to explain physical activity behavior
(32,36). The influence of the physical environment upon
participation remains a high priority area for future research.
The available evidence, although limited, suggested that
access to facilities, satisfaction with facilities, neighborhood
safety, access to exercise equipment at home, and frequently
observing others exercise may be important factors.
Other notable changes from previous reviews were the
findings in relation to marital status, overweight and obe-
sity, attitudes, lack of time, past exercise behavior, and
smoking status. Based on the most recent evidence, being
married emerged as a weak yet negative influence on phys-
ical activity participation, whereas weight status and smok-
ing changed from being repeatedly demonstrated nonasso-
ciations to repeatedly documented negative associations
with physical activity. There was sufficient evidence to
“upgrade” the classification of lack of time and past exercise
behavior from weak or mixed evidence of association to a
repeatedly documented association. Activity history during
childhood and youth and school sports was upgraded from
repeatedly documented lack of association to weak or mixed
evidence of no association with adult activity. There was
consistent lack of support for attitudes toward physical
activity. This resulted in a change in classification for this
variable from mixed or weak evidence of no association to
repeatedly documented lack of association.
The blank spaces and equivocal associations shown in
Table 1 highlight the need for more research in a number of
domains. In particular, there is clearly a need to gain a better
understanding of the specific physical environmental at-
tributes that might influence physical activity, and how
these attributes interact with known psychosocial influences
of activity behavior. However, for progress to be made in
this important area, more work is needed with respect to the
measurement of environmental variables (37). There are
unique challenges in studying environmental correlates of
physical activity. Perhaps the most basic challenge is that
many environmental variables are less subject to experimen-
tal control and manipulation than are, for example, intrap-
ersonal variables. The fact that environmental variables are
ubiquitous and can have widespread effects on the popula-
tion makes them very difficult to study. If, for example,
virtually every adult in a population owns at least one
television and one motor vehicle, it is a challenge to docu-
ment the effects of these variables.
Although new conceptual explanations of environmental
influences on physical activity are a priority, the primary
need is for empirical data. There is a need to determine
whether environmental measures add variance to the expla-
nation of behavior, above that provided by intrapersonal and
social and cultural domains (37). Multiple geographic and
cultural settings may need to be studied to achieve sufficient
variation in environmental characteristics to study their as-
sociations with behavior. For some variables, it may be
necessary to conduct studies in multiple nations. Ultimately,
there will be a need to take the variables identified in
correlational studies and target them for change in interven-
tion studies. Ideally, multi-level interventions will be eval-
uated, and in some cases it may be possible to determine
whether multilevel approaches that include environmental
changes improve outcomes over what can be achieved by
programs targeting only intrapersonal and interpersonal me-
diators (37).
As few of the studies examined the determinants of phys-
ical activity in different contexts, there is a need for future
studies to identify the determinants of physical activities and
sedentary behaviors in the context of work and daily living
(32). That is, we need to know whether the determinants are
different for transport activity (walking or cycling to and
from places, leisure time activity, occupational activity, and
incidental activity). We need more information about phys-
ical activity patterns at different life stages. In particular, we
need to learn more about the role of pregnancy, childbirth,
and parenting as a barrier to activity participation. We also
need to learn more about the correlates of moderate-inten-
sity physical activity and about the interactions between
different influences. Such information is crucial if public
education programs emphasizing lifestyle physical activity
are to be pursued with success. Finally, the physical activity
determinants literature is still predominantly based on cross-
sectional studies, precluding the ability to infer causal rela-
tionships between the hypothesized determinants and phys-
ical activity. Accordingly, longitudinal and intervention
studies in this area are needed.
Funding for this project was provided by the Commonwealth
Department of Health and Aged Care, Canberra, Australia.
REFERENCES
1. BAUMAN, A., B. SMITH,L.STOKER L, B. BELLEW, and M. BOOTH. Geo-
graphical influences upon physical activity participation: evidence of a
“coastal effect.” Aust. N. Z. J. Public Health 23:322–324, 1991.
2. B
OOTH, M., N. OWEN,A.BAUMAN,O.CLAVISI, and E. LESLIE. Social-
cognitive and perceived environment influences associated with
physical activity in older Australians. Prev. Med. 31:15–22, 2000.
3. B
OZIONELOS, G., and P. BENNETT. The theory of planned behavior
as predictor of exercise: the moderating influence of beliefs and
personality variables. J. Health Psychol. 4:517–529, 1999.
4. B
RENES, G. A., M. J. STRUBE, and M. STORANDT. An application of
the theory of planned behavior to exercise among older adults.
J. Appl. Soc. Psychol. 28:2274–2290, 1998.
2000
Official Journal of the American College of Sports Medicine http://www.acsm-msse.org
5. BROWN, W. J., A. F. YOUNG, and J. E. BYLES. Tyranny of distance?
The health of mid-age women living in five geographical areas of
Australia. Aust. J. Rural Health 7:148–154, 1999.
6. B
ROWNSON, R. C., A. A. EYLER,A.C.KING,D.R.BROWN,Y.L.
S
HYU, and J. F. SALLIS. Patterns and correlates of physical activity
among US women 40 years and older. Am. J. Public Health
90:264–270, 2000.
7. B
URTON, L. C., S. SHAPIRO, and P. S. GERMAN. Determinants of
physical activity initiation and maintenance among community-
dwelling older persons. Prev. Med. 29:422–430, 1999.
8. C
ASERTA, M. S., and P. A. GILLET. Older women’s feelings about
exercise and their adherence to an aerobic regimen over time. The
Gerontologist 38:602–609, 1998.
9. C
ASTRO, C. M., J. F. SALLIS,S.A.HICKMAN,R.E.LEE, and A. H.
C
HEN. A prospective study of psychosocial correlates of physical
activity for ethnic minority women. Psychol. Health 14:277–293,
1999.
10. C
ENTERS FOR DISEASE CONTROL AND PREVENTION. Neighborhood
safety and the prevalence of physical inactivity—selected states,
1996. MMWR 48:143–146, 1999.
11. C
LARK, D. O., and F. NORTHWEHR. Exercise self-efficacy and its
correlates among socioeconomically disadvantaged older adults.
Health Educ. Behav. 26:535–546, 1999.
12. C
LARK, D. O. Physical activity and its correlates among urban
primary care patients aged 55 years or older. J. Gerontol. 54B:
S41–S48, 1999.
13. C
OMMONWEALTH DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND FAMILY SERVICES
(DHFS). Developing an Active Australia: a framework for action
for physical activity and health. DHFS: Canberra, 1998, pp. 1–18.
14. C
OURNEYA, K. S., T. M. BOBICK, and R. J. SCHINKE. Does the theory
of planned behavior mediate the relation between personality and
exercise behavior. Basic Appl. Soc. Psychol. 21:317–324, 1999.
15. C
OURNEYA, K. S., and L. M. HELLSTEN. Personality correlates of
exercise behavior, motives, barriers andpreferences: an application of
the five-factor model. Pers. Individ. Diff. 24:625–633, 1998.
16. C
OURNEYA, K. S., R. C. PLOTNIKOFF,S.B.HOTZ, and N. J. BIRKETT.
Social support and the theory of planned behavior in the exercise
domain. Am. J. Health Behav. 24:300–308, 2000.
17. D
ISHMAN, R. K. Determinants of participation in physical activity.
In: Exercise, Fitness, and Health: A Consensus of Current Knowl-
edge, C. Bouchard, R. J. Shephard, T. Stephens, J. R. Sutton, and
B. D. McPherson (Eds.). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics, 1990,
pp. 75–102.
18. D
ISHMAN, R. K., J. F. SALLIS, and D. R. ORENSTEIN. The determi-
nants of physical activity and exercise. Public Health Rep. 100:
158–171, 1985.
19. D
ISHMAN R. K., and J. F. SALLIS. Determinants and interventions
for physical activity and exercise. In: Physical activity, fitness and
health: International proceedings and consensus statement,C.
Bouchard, R. J. Shephard, and T. Stephens (Eds.). Champaign, IL:
Human Kinetics, 1994, pp. 214–238.
20. E
YLER, A. A., R. C. BROWNSON,R.J.DONATELLE,A.C.KING,D.
B
ROWN, and J. F. SALLIS. Physical activity social support and
middle- and older-aged minority women: results from a US sur-
vey. Soc. Sci. Med. 49:871–789, 1999.
21. J
OHNSON, M. F., J. F. NICHOLS,J.F.SALLIS,K.J.CALFAS, and M. F.
H
OVELL. Interrelationships between physical activity and other
health behaviors among university women and men. Prev. Med.
27:536–544, 1998.
22. K
ERNER, M. S., and A. H. GROSSMAN. Attitudinal, social, and
practical correlates to fitness behavior: a test of the theory of
planned behavior. Percept. Mot. Skills 87:1139–1154, 1998.
23. K
ING, A. C., C. CASTRO,S.WILCOX,A.A.EYLER,J.F.SALLIS, and
R. C. B
ROWNSON. Personal and environmental factors associated
with physical inactivity among different racial-ethnic groups of
US middle-aged and older aged adults. Health Psychol. 19:354–
364, 2000.
24. K
ING, A. C., M. KIERNAN,D.K.AHN, and S. WILCOX. The effects
of marital transitions on changes in physical activity: results from
a 10-year community study. Ann. Behav. Med. 20:64–69, 1998.
25. L
ESLIE, E., N. OWEN,J.SALMON,A.BAUMAN,J.F.SALLIS, and S. K.
L
O. Insufficiently active Australian college students: perceived per-
sonal, social, and environmental influences. Prev. Med. 28:20–27,
1999.
26. L
IAN, W. M., G. L. GAN,C.H.PIN,S.WEE, and H. C. YE.
Correlates of leisure-time physical activity in an elderly popula-
tion in Singapore. Am. J. Public Health 89:1578–1580, 1999.
27. M
ACDOUGALL, C., R. COOKE,N.OWEN,K.WILLSON, and A. BAU-
MAN. Relating physical activity to health status, social connections
and community facilities. Aust. N. Z. J. Public Health 21:631–
637, 1997.
28. M
ARTINEZ-GONZALEZ, M. A., J. A. MARTINEZ,F.B.HU,M.J.
G
IBNEY, and J. KEARNEY. Physical inactivity, sedentary lifestyle
and obesity in the European Union. Int. J. Obes. 23:1192–1201,
1999.
29. M
ICHELS, T. C. Predicting exercise in older Americans: using the
theory of planned behavior. Mil. Med. 163:524–529, 1998.
30. M
ITCHELL, S. A., and R. S. OLDS. Psychological and perceived
situational predictors of physical activity: a cross-sectional anal-
ysis. Health Educ. Res. 14:305–313, 1999.
31. O
MAN, R.F., and A. C. KING. Predicting the adoption and mainte-
nance of exercise participation using self-efficacy and previous
exercise participation rates. Am. J. Health Prom. 12:154–161,
1998.
32. O
WEN, N., E. LESLIE,J.SALMON, and M. J. FOTHERINGHAM. Envi-
ronmental determinants of physical activity and sedentary behav-
ior. Exerc. Sport Sci. Rev. 28:153–158, 2000.
33. R
ODGERS, W. M., and L. GAUVIN. Heterogeneity of incentives for
physical activity and self-efficacy in highly active and moderately
active women exercisers. J. Appl. Soc. Psychol. 28:1016–1029,
1998.
34. R
OSS, C. E. Walking, exercising, and smoking: does neighborhood
matter? Soc. Sci. Med. 51:265–274, 2000.
35. R
UCHLIN, H. S., and M. S. LACHS. Prevalence and correlates of
exercise among older adults. J. Appl. Gerontol. 18:341–357, 1999.
36. S
ALLIS, J. F., and N. OWEN. Physical Activity and Behavioral Medi-
cine. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, 1999, pp. 110–134.
37. S
ALLIS, J. F., and N. OWEN. Ecological models. In: Health Behav-
ior and Health Education: Theory, Research, and Practice, 2nd
Ed., K. Glanz, F. M. Lewis, and B. K. Rimer (Eds.). San Fran-
cisco: Jossey-Bass, 1997, pp. 403–424.
38. S
ALMON, J., A. BAUMAN,D.CRAWFORD,A.TIMPERIO, and N. OWEN.
The association between television viewing and overweight
among Australian adults participating in varying levels of leisure
time physical activity. Int. J. Obes. 24:600–606, 2000.
39. S
ALMON, J., N. OWEN,A.BAUMAN,M.K.H.SCHMITZ, and M.
B
OOTH. Leisure-time, occupational, and household physical activ-
ity among professional, skilled, and less-skilled workers and
homemakers. Prev. Med. 30:191–199, 2000.
40. S
IMONSICK, E., J. M. GURALNIK, and L. P. FRIED. Who walks?
Factors associated with walking behavior in disabled older women
with and without self-reported walking difficulty. J. Am. Geriatr.
Soc. 47:672–680, 1999.
41. S
TERNFELD, B., B. E. AINSWORTH, and C. P. QUESENBERRY, Jr.
Physical activity in a diverse population of women. Prev. Med.
28:313–323, 1999.
42. S
ULLUM, J., M. M. CLARK, and T. K. KING. Predictors of exercise
relapse in a college population. J. Am. Coll. Health 48:175–180,
2000.
43. T
AYLOR, W. C., S. N. BLAIR,S.S.CUMMINGS,C.C.WUN, and R. M.
M
ALINA. Childhood and adolescent physical activity patterns and
adult physical activity. Med. Sci. Sports Exerc. 31:118–123, 1999.
44. U
NITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES.
Physical activity and health: A report of the Surgeon General.
Atlanta, GA: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services,
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for
Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, S/N 017-023-
00196-5, 1996, pp. 3–8.
45. W
ILCOX, S., C. CASTRO,A.C.KING,R.HOUSEMANN, and R. C.
B
ROWNSON. Determinants of leisure time physical activity in rural
compared with urban older and ethnically diverse women in the
United States. J. Epidemiol. Community Health 54:667–672,
2000.
46. Y
IN, Z., and M. P. BOYD. Behavioral and cognitive correlates of
exercise self-schemata. J. Psychol. 134:269–282, 2000.
CORRELATES OF ADULT PHYSICAL ACTIVITY Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise
姞
2001
