4.3 Review

The Influence of Social Support Specific to Physical Activity on Physical Activity Among College and University Students: A Systematic Review

期刊

JOURNAL OF PHYSICAL ACTIVITY & HEALTH
卷 18, 期 6, 页码 737-747

出版社

HUMAN KINETICS PUBL INC
DOI: 10.1123/jpah.2020-0713

关键词

health determinants; exercise psychology; active behavior; social relationships

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The review of 25 papers showed a positive association between SSPA and PA among college and university students, with family and friends being significant sources of SSPA. However, the high variability in measurement methods made it difficult to compare studies and reach a clear consensus.
Background: Starting college or university is a significant life event that can impact students' physical activity (PA). Social support specific to PA (SSPA) is a social determinant of PA among college and university students. This review had 3 aims: (1) to systematically review studies examining the association between SSPA and PA among students; (2) to examine whether potential associations differed in terms of types or sources of SSPA; and (3) to examine whether any potential associations differed in terms of gender. Methods: Studies were identified using Academic Search Premier, PsycInfo, Sociological Abstracts, and SPORT-Discus. Results: This review included 25 papers. The results suggested that there is a positive association between SSPA and PA among college and university students. Although the importance of different sources of SSPA is not clear, the results suggested that family and friends provide significant SSPA. Conclusions: High variability in measurement methods made it difficult to compare studies and to come to a clear consensus. However, the findings suggested that SSPA may be a determinant of PA. In order to better understand the relationship between SSPA and PA among students, some elements, such as gender, socioeconomic level, and off- or on-campus housing, should be considered in future studies.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.3
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据