Research articleFitness Facilities for Adults: Differences in Perceived Access and Usage
Introduction
Recent interventions have promoted the development of social and physical environments that contribute to behavior change by making it easier for people to engage in the desired behavior, such as being physically active.1 The social ecologic model of health suggests that social and environmental factors may influence participation in physical activity.2 The environment provides cues and opportunities for physical activity, and perceived access is influenced by a multitude of factors. Such influences include socio-cultural factors such as having active neighbors,3 transportation supports such as vehicle ownership,4 the self-perception of having disposable personal income,5 and perceptions of a safe and pleasant neighborhood.6 Situational influences such as distance from one’s residence to a nearby fitness facility can also affect physical activity behavior.7
The Task Force on Community Preventive Services strongly recommends environmental interventions that include enhanced access to opportunities for physical activity, such as fitness centers or community centers.8 Evidence of the relationship between environmental supports for physical activity continues to grow and gain support.5 Societal trends from 1987 to 2001 indicate that participation in leisure-time physical activity (e.g., membership in sports club, dance studios) has been relatively stable, whereas factors associated with sedentary lifestyles (e.g., television watching) has almost doubled.9 It is not suprising that fewer than 50% of adults in the United States meet public health recommendations of 30 minutes of moderate-intensity physical activity on 5 or more days per week or 20 minutes of vigorous-intensity physical activity on 3 or more days per week.10
Despite the acknowledged importance of having access to places to be physically active, there are surprisingly few data available to describe characteristics of perceived access to fitness facilities. The purpose of this paper is to describe the characteristics of those who perceived that they have access to fitness facilities, and determine the prevalence of perceived access, reported use of fitness facilities, and reported barriers to the use of fitness facilities.
Section snippets
Methods
Data came from the 2002 National Health Interview Survey (NHIS), an annual survey of non-institutionalized civilian adults in the U.S. It is operated by the National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS), and data are collected by the U.S. Bureau of the Census through face-to-face interviews in 2002. The NHIS uses a stratified, multistage probability design. Questions from the Sample Adult Section (≥18 years of age, 31,044 total respondents) were used. The final response rate for the Sample Adult
Results
Of 27,894 respondents aged 18 years or older, the weighted sample consisted of 48.9% men and 51.1% women (Table 1). The weighted sample was predominantly non-Hispanic white, and the majority of respondents had a high school education or some college. In 2002, 32.5% (95% confidence interval [CI]=31.7–33.3) of the adults were active, 30.5% (95% CI=29.8–31.2) were intermittently active, and 37.0% (95% CI=36.0–38.0) were inactive.
In 2002, 61.3% (95% CI=60.3–62.3) of adults reported having perceived
Discussion
This study is unique in that it examined the national prevalence of self-reported perceived access to a fitness facility. In 2002, 61.3% reported perceived access to a fitness facility. The prevalence of perceived access to a fitness facility was highest among those younger than 35, non-Hispanic whites, with a college education, and with higher physical activity levels. Those with a BMI greater than 35 kg/m2 had lower perceived access to a fitness facility (versus those with a BMI <35 kg/m2).
Conclusion
This study found that approximately 61% of adults perceived that they had access to a fitness facility. Perceived access was highest among adults aged 34 years and younger, non-Hispanic whites, those with a college education, with a BMI lower than 35 kg/m2 and with highest physical activity levels. The Task Force on Community Preventive Services8 recommends the creation of, or enhanced access to places for physical activity combined with informational outreach activities. To give access a more
References (22)
- et al.
The effectiveness of interventions to increase physical activity: a systematic review
Am J Prev Med
(2002) The economics of physical activity
Am J Prev Med
(2004)- et al.
The relative influence of individual, social and physical environment determinants of physical activity
Soc Sci Med
(2002) - et al.
Physical activity patterns in a diverse population of women
Prev Med
(1999) - Institute of Medicine. Does the built environment influence physical activity? Special report 282. Washington DC: IOM,...
- et al.
Ecological models
- et al.
Environmental and policy determinants of physical activity in the United States
Am J Public Health
(2001) - et al.
Socioeconomics of urban travel: evidence from the 2001 NHTS
Transport Q
(2003) - et al.
Declining rates of physical activity in the United States: what are the contributors?
Annu Rev Public Health
(2005) - et al.
Perceptions of neighborhood environment for physical activity: is it “who you are” or “where you live”?
J Urban Health
(2004)
Distance between homes and exercise facilities related to frequency of exercise among San Diego residents
Public Health Rep
Cited by (40)
Use and non-use of parks are dictated by nature orientation, perceived accessibility and social norm which manifest in a continuum
2023, Landscape and Urban PlanningAssessment of COVID-19 precautionary measures in sports facilities: A case study on a health club in Saudi Arabia
2022, Journal of Building EngineeringCitation Excerpt :Yet, the research did not focus on the precautionary measures required for health club facilities against the pandemic risks as contemporarily challenged in 2020. Kruger et al. [13] investigated accessibility of health club facilities locations to its members residences. The study indicated the need for more research on evidence-based critique for investigating better design decisions of health club facilities.
Impact of perceived food accessibility on household food waste behaviors: A case of the Klang Valley, Malaysia
2019, Resources, Conservation and RecyclingCitation Excerpt :These subjective measurements of accessibility (i.e., perceived accessibility) differs from objective measurements of accessibility as it does not equate with actual distance (Wang et al., 2015). Perceived accessibility, rather than objective accessibility, has been found to have more influence on frequency of facility use and hence more important in understanding human behaviors (Kruger et al., 2007; Wang et al., 2015). This is especially so as subjective variables of accessibility vary between individuals.
Would increasing access to recreational places promote healthier weights and a healthier nation?
2019, Health and PlaceCitation Excerpt :Van Cauwenberg et al., 2017) Additionally, salubrious effects of nearby parks and fitness facilities may only be found if these recreational places are of high quality and, in the case of fitness facilities, are not cost prohibitive. ( Van Cauwenberg et al., 2017; Kruger, Carlson and Kohl, 2007; Rundle et al., 2013; Kelly et al., 2016) Our data did not allow us to explore those factors. Study strengths include the use of a large, nationwide sample with repeated observations over several years, detailed health data, and geocoded addresses.
Attitudes and preferences towards exercise training in individuals with alcohol use disorders in a residential treatment setting
2015, Journal of Substance Abuse TreatmentCitation Excerpt :Others have also found that lack of motivation and equipment costs were major barriers to engaging in exercise (Abrantes et al., 2011; Read et al., 2001). Access to fitness facilities is a commonly listed barrier to being physically activity among the general U.S. population where nearly 40% of respondents reported having no access to a fitness facility and only 20% reported using a fitness facility 10 or more times in the past year (Kruger, Carlson, & Kohl, 2007). Given that only 18 and 48% of our sample reported having a gym membership or access to gym equipment, respectively, initiating an exercise training program during residential treatment could serve as a potential solution to the barriers of cost and access to a gym or exercise equipment.