4.3 Article

Relation between Perceived Barrier Profiles, Physical Literacy, Motivation and Physical Activity Behaviors among Parents with a Young Child

Publisher

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/ijerph17124459

Keywords

physical activity barriers; parents; latent profile analysis; physical literacy; autonomous motivation

Funding

  1. Hong Kong Jockey Club Charities Trust

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objectives: to reveal distinct subgroups of parents by their perception of 6 types of physical activity barriers and challenges (i.e., lack of time, poor health, lack of company, lack of facilities, childcare responsibility, lack of motivation), and examine its relation with related constructs.Design: cross-sectional survey data.Method: the sample consisted of 424 parents who had at least 1 child of primary school age. Latent profile analysis was conducted to identify latent subgroups within participants. Group differences on physical literacy, autonomous motivation, and self-report physical activity (PA) levels were explored.Results: a four-profile solution was obtained from latent profile analysis, labelled as: Struggling (29.0%), Family burden (41.3%), Lazy (13.0%), and Barriers free (16.7%). The Barriers free profile experienced the least difficulties with physical activity, but the Struggling profile suffered the most severe barriers and challenges. Family burden and Lazy profiles demonstrated qualitative differences on one or two given challenges. Significant group differences on physical literacy, autonomous motivation, and PA levels were found, showing the Barriers free profile as the most robust and adaptive group of parents.Conclusions: the findings suggest that it is common for a substantial portion of parents to experience multiple barriers and challenges to a relatively high degree. Intervention on raising parent's physical literacy to reduce barriers and sustain their motivation may be a target for intervention.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.3
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available