4.3 Review

Physical Activity and Physical Fitness among University Students-A Systematic Review

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/ijerph19010158

关键词

exercise; students; assessment; physical fitness; physical activity

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The aim of this systematic review was to examine the scientific evidence regarding physical activity and physical fitness among university students. The study found that university students generally showed satisfactory levels of physical activity and physical fitness. However, the results varied due to cultural differences and educational systems. Therefore, it is crucial to raise awareness among university students and at least maintain satisfactory levels of physical activity and physical fitness.
The aim of this systematic review was to examine the scientific evidence regarding physical activity and physical fitness among university students. The search and analysis of the studies were done in accordance with the PRISMA guidelines. An electronic databases search (Google Scholar, PubMed, Science Direct, and Scopus) yielded 11,839 studies. Subsequently, the identified studies had to be published in English between 2011 and 2021, the experimental study had to have included males and females attending a faculty, and the participants had to have been evaluated for physical activity and fitness. A total of 21 studies were included in the quantitative synthesis, with a total of 7306 participants, both male and female. After analyzing the obtained results, it could be concluded that university students show a satisfactory level of physical activity and physical fitness. However, the results vary due to different factors involved, mostly related to the cultural differences and educational systems in different countries. As this study observes mediocre results of physical activity and physical fitness among university students, it is crucial to get their attention and awareness, to at least maintain a satisfactory level of physical activity and physical fitness.

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