4.7 Article

Identifying risk factors affecting exercise behavior among overweight or obese individuals in China

期刊

FRONTIERS IN PUBLIC HEALTH
卷 11, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

FRONTIERS MEDIA SA
DOI: 10.3389/fpubh.2023.1122473

关键词

obesity; exercise behavior; risk factors; overweight; self-rated health

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The disease burden caused by obesity has increased significantly in China, and less than 30% of obese individuals meet the weekly physical activity standards recommended by the WHO. Our survey found that there is an association between subjective health status and exercise behavior in obese people, and individuals with higher education and income are more likely to participate in sports.
BackgroundThe disease burden caused by obesity has increased significantly in China. Less than 30% of those who are obese meet the weekly physical activity standards recommended by the WHO. Risk factors that influence exercise behavior in people with obesity remain unclear. MethodsBased on the survey from the Chinese General Social Survey program (CGSS) in 2017, 3,331 subjects were identified and enrolled in the univariate and multiple probit regression models. We aimed to identify the association between SRH and the exercise behavior of obese people and further explore the influencing factors of active physical activity in this group of people. ResultsThe proportion of active physical activity in obese people was 25%. Groups with better SRH, higher education and income were more likely to participate in sports. Obese people who lived in rural areas, were unmarried or divorced, or fell within the age range of 35-40 had a significantly lower percentage of engagement in active physical activity. ConclusionsThe proportion of people with obesity who meet the WHO recommendation for physical activity in China is not ideal. Health promotion programs for those who are obese need to be further strengthened and targeted, especially for rural areas, low-income families, and middle-aged obese people.

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

4.7
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