IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/ibn/gjhsjl/v8y2016i12p248.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Perception and Misperception of Health Enhancing Physical Activity among Urban Community Dwellers in Ibadan, Nigeria: Profiling the Underestimators, the Overestimators, and the Realists

Author

Listed:
  • Ade Adeniyi
  • Omoyemi Ogwumike
  • Faola Adewumi

Abstract

BACKGROUND- The ability to initiate and sustain health enhancing behaviour including physical activity requires appropriate self-perception of such activities. This study was conducted to investigate whether a group of Nigerian urban community dwellers are able to demonstrate a good perception of their physical activity behaviour.METHODOLOGY- The study was a cross-sectional survey of 1,153 urban community dwellers from three local government areas of Ibadan, Southwest Nigeria. Physical activity perception was assessed first; by self-rating of their physical activity based on a moderate-level physical activity vignette, followed by comparison with a more objective measure using the Short Questionnaire to Assess Health-Enhancing Physical Activity (SQUASH). Participants were thereafter classified as underestimators, overestimators, realistic actives or realistic inactives. Data were analysed using descriptive and inferential statistics, with the influence of sociodemographic characteristics on physical activity perception of participants tested with multiple logistic regression analyses at p<0.05.RESULTS- A total of 604 (52.4%) of the community dwellers were physically inactive, but only 269 (23.3%) correctly rated themselves as inactive, 335 (29.1%) participants overestimated their physical activity level and 2.7% underestimated theirs. The odds of overestimation of physical activity was higher in middle-aged participants (OR=2.16; 95% CI=1.75-3.11) but lower among female participants (OR=0.58; 95% CI=0.30-0.79). Being a realistic inactive was associated with increasing age, female gender and higher income. CONCLUSIONS- About half of the community dwellers were physically inactive with about half of them having a misperception of their activity levels. Misperceptions and realities about physical activity were generally linked to sociodemographic characteristics. A specially designed educational intervention programme may provide more insight to the community dwellers about their physical activities.

Suggested Citation

  • Ade Adeniyi & Omoyemi Ogwumike & Faola Adewumi, 2016. "Perception and Misperception of Health Enhancing Physical Activity among Urban Community Dwellers in Ibadan, Nigeria: Profiling the Underestimators, the Overestimators, and the Realists," Global Journal of Health Science, Canadian Center of Science and Education, vol. 8(12), pages 248-248, December.
    • Handle: RePEc:ibn:gjhsjl:v:8:y:2016:i:12:p:248
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.ccsenet.org/journal/index.php/gjhs/article/download/57525/31954
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: http://www.ccsenet.org/journal/index.php/gjhs/article/view/57525
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Saelens, B.E. & Sallis, J.F. & Black, J.B. & Chen, D., 2003. "Neighborhood-Based Differences in Physical Activity: An Environment Scale Evaluation," American Journal of Public Health, American Public Health Association, vol. 93(9), pages 1552-1558.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Anura Amarasinghe & Gerard D'Souza & Cheryl Brown & Tatiana Borisova, 2006. "A Spatial Analysis of Obesity in West Virginia," Working Papers Working Paper 2006-13, Regional Research Institute, West Virginia University.
    2. Spielman, Seth E. & Yoo, Eun-hye, 2009. "The spatial dimensions of neighborhood effects," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 68(6), pages 1098-1105, March.
    3. Kevin Credit & Elizabeth Mack, 2019. "Place-making and performance: The impact of walkable built environments on business performance in Phoenix and Boston," Environment and Planning B, , vol. 46(2), pages 264-285, February.
    4. Mi Namgung & B. Elizabeth Mercado Gonzalez & Seungwoo Park, 2019. "The Role of Built Environment on Health of Older Adults in Korea: Obesity and Gender Differences," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 16(18), pages 1-13, September.
    5. Eric T. H. Chan & Tim Schwanen & David Banister, 2021. "The role of perceived environment, neighbourhood characteristics, and attitudes in walking behaviour: evidence from a rapidly developing city in China," Transportation, Springer, vol. 48(1), pages 431-454, February.
    6. McNeill, Lorna Haughton & Kreuter, Matthew W. & Subramanian, S.V., 2006. "Social Environment and Physical activity: A review of concepts and evidence," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 63(4), pages 1011-1022, August.
    7. Park, Sungjin, 2008. "Defining, Measuring, and Evaluating Path Walkability, and Testing Its Impacts on Transit Users’ Mode Choice and Walking Distance to the Station," University of California Transportation Center, Working Papers qt0ct7c30p, University of California Transportation Center.
    8. Razieh Zandieh & Javier Martinez & Johannes Flacke & Phil Jones & Martin Van Maarseveen, 2016. "Older Adults’ Outdoor Walking: Inequalities in Neighbourhood Safety, Pedestrian Infrastructure and Aesthetics," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 13(12), pages 1-24, November.
    9. Deepti Adlakha & J. Aaron Hipp & James F. Sallis & Ross C. Brownson, 2018. "Exploring Neighborhood Environments and Active Commuting in Chennai, India," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 15(9), pages 1-15, August.
    10. Abbas Sheikh-Mohammad-Zadeh & Nicolas Saunier & E. O. D. Waygood, 2022. "Developing an Objective Framework to Evaluate Street Functions," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(12), pages 1-15, June.
    11. Alba Martínez-García & Eva María Trescastro-López & María Eugenia Galiana-Sánchez & Pamela Pereyra-Zamora, 2019. "Data Collection Instruments for Obesogenic Environments in Adults: A Scoping Review," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 16(8), pages 1-27, April.
    12. Stephen Matthews & Daniel M. Parker, 2013. "Progress in Spatial Demography," Demographic Research, Max Planck Institute for Demographic Research, Rostock, Germany, vol. 28(10), pages 271-312.
    13. Alexandra Jiricka-Pürrer & Valeria Tadini & Boris Salak & Karolina Taczanowska & Andrzej Tucki & Giulio Senes, 2019. "Do Protected Areas Contribute to Health and Well-Being? A Cross-Cultural Comparison," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 16(7), pages 1-18, April.
    14. Wyatt A. Jensen & Barbara B. Brown & Ken R. Smith & Simon C. Brewer & Jonathan W. Amburgey & Brett McIff, 2017. "Active Transportation on a Complete Street: Perceived and Audited Walkability Correlates," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 14(9), pages 1-19, September.
    15. Nasar, Jack L. & Holloman, Christopher & Abdulkarim, Dina, 2015. "Street characteristics to encourage children to walk," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 72(C), pages 62-70.
    16. Zidan Mao & Fangyu Liu & Ying Zhao, 2023. "Happy city for everyone: Generational differences in rural migrant workers’ leisure in urban China," Urban Studies, Urban Studies Journal Limited, vol. 60(16), pages 3252-3271, December.
    17. Mu-Fei He & Shu-Lin Shi & Ming-Yi He & Yan-Peng Leng & Shao-Yi Wang, 2021. "What Affects Older Adults’ Viewing Behaviors in Neighborhood Open Space: A Study in Hong Kong," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(5), pages 1-16, March.
    18. Wilma L Zijlema & Bart Klijs & Ronald P Stolk & Judith G M Rosmalen, 2015. "(Un)Healthy in the City: Respiratory, Cardiometabolic and Mental Health Associated with Urbanity," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 10(12), pages 1-11, December.
    19. Sun, Bindong & Yan, Hong & Zhang, Tinglin, 2017. "Built environmental impacts on individual mode choice and BMI: Evidence from China," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 63(C), pages 11-21.
    20. Lake Sagaris, 2015. "Lessons from 40 years of planning for cycle‐inclusion: Reflections from Santiago, Chile," Natural Resources Forum, Blackwell Publishing, vol. 39(1), pages 64-81, February.

    More about this item

    JEL classification:

    • R00 - Urban, Rural, Regional, Real Estate, and Transportation Economics - - General - - - General
    • Z0 - Other Special Topics - - General

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:ibn:gjhsjl:v:8:y:2016:i:12:p:248. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Canadian Center of Science and Education (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/cepflch.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.