4.3 Article

Barriers to and motivators for physical activity among people with Type 2 diabetes: patients' perspectives

Journal

DIABETIC MEDICINE
Volume 33, Issue 12, Pages 1677-1685

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/dme.13167

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. Novo Nordisk Foundation
  2. Steno Diabetes Centre
  3. Novo Nordisk Fonden [NNF14OC0009875] Funding Source: researchfish

Ask authors/readers for more resources

AimTo explore barriers to and motivators for physical activity in a group of overweight and obese individuals with dysregulated Type 2 diabetes. MethodsData were collected from the Steno Diabetes Center's outpatient clinic in Denmark. Four focus groups were conducted including 28 individuals with Type 2 diabetes aged 39-71 years. The facilitators used open-ended questions and probes such as images, statements and quotations about physical activity to foster active participation and interaction among participants. Focus groups were recorded on video and the discussions were transcribed and analysed thematically. ResultsWe identified four main themes: 1) the body as a barrier to physical activity because of functional limitations; 2) logistical challenges, including lack of time and awareness of where to exercise in the local area; 3) being physically active with others, providing a sense of mutual commitment and enjoyment; and 4) goal-setting and self-tracking, which was seen as an opportunity to track physical improvement over time. ConclusionsThe findings suggest that, once people are active, a high level of social interaction may help maintain their activity levels. Further research is needed to investigate the effect of combining individually tailored exercise plans with the establishment of customized and locally based exercise communities that offer enjoyment and support. Additionally, it is relevant to explore experiences of using self-tracking technologies to review short- and long-term goals.

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