Cái gì giải thích khoảng cách về tình trạng kinh tế - xã hội trong hoạt động thể chất? Sự khác biệt về giáo dục trong các yếu tố quyết định hoạt động thể chất và thời gian sử dụng màn hình

BMC Public Health - Tập 17 - Trang 1-15 - 2017
Nelli Hankonen1,2, Matti T. J. Heino1, Emilia Kujala1, Sini-Tuuli Hynynen1, Pilvikki Absetz3, Vera Araújo-Soares4, Katja Borodulin5, Ari Haukkala1
1Department of Social Research, University of Helsinki, Helsinki, Finland
2School of Social Sciences and Humanities, University of Tampere, Tampere, Finland
3School of Health Sciences, University of Tampere, Tampere, Finland
4Institute of Health and Society, Faculty of Medical Sciences, Newcastle University, Newcastle, UK
5National Institute for Health and Welfare, Helsinki, Finland

Tóm tắt

Việc thiết kế các can thiệp dựa trên bằng chứng để giải quyết những bất bình đẳng về tình trạng kinh tế - xã hội trong sức khỏe và hành vi sức khỏe cần có sự hiểu biết tốt hơn về các cơ chế giải thích cụ thể. Chúng tôi nhằm điều tra một loạt các yếu tố trung gian lý thuyết tiềm năng về hoạt động thể chất (PA) và thời gian sử dụng màn hình ở các nhóm có tình trạng kinh tế - xã hội (SES) khác nhau: một nhóm SES cao là học sinh trung học và một nhóm SES thấp là học sinh trường nghề. Hệ COM-B, bao gồm Khung lý thuyết miền (TDF), đã được sử dụng như một khung nghiên cứu để tổng hợp các yếu tố quyết định lý thuyết khác nhau trong nghiên cứu khám phá này. Học sinh trường nghề và trung học Phần Lan (N = 659) từ 16-19 tuổi đã trả lời một khảo sát đánh giá các yếu tố quyết định tâm lý, xã hội và môi trường đối với hoạt động (PA và thời gian sử dụng màn hình). Các yếu tố này có thể phân loại vào các miền COM-B: khả năng, cơ hội và động lực. Các chỉ số đầu ra là các chỉ số tự báo cáo hợp lệ về PA và thời gian sử dụng màn hình. Phân tích thống kê bao gồm một quy trình trung gian dựa trên bootstrapping. Về PA, có sự khác biệt về SES trong tất cả các miền COM-B. Ví dụ, học sinh trường nghề báo cáo sử dụng ít tự giám sát PA hơn, có quy tắc chỉ dẫn yếu hơn để tham gia vào PA thường xuyên và ít ý định hơn so với học sinh trung học. Phân tích trung gian xác định các yếu tố trung gian tiềm năng của mối quan hệ SES-PA trong cả ba miền: Các ứng viên quan trọng nhất bao gồm tự giám sát (CI95 cho b: 0.19–0.47), danh tính (0.04–0.25) và nguồn lực vật chất sẵn có (0.01–0.16). Tuy nhiên, SES không có mối liên hệ với hầu hết các yếu tố quyết định thời gian sử dụng màn hình, nơi chủ yếu là sự khác biệt về giới. Hầu hết các yếu tố quyết định đều có mối quan hệ tương tự với cả hai hành vi trong cả hai nhóm SES, cho thấy không có hiệu ứng điều chỉnh lớn nào của SES đối với những mối quan hệ này. Nghiên cứu này đã tiết lộ rằng ngay từ những năm đầu tiên của sự phân hóa giáo dục, mức độ của các yếu tố quyết định PA chính đã khác nhau, góp phần vào những khác biệt về kinh tế - xã hội trong PA. Các phân tích đã xác định các yếu tố trung gian mạnh nhất của mối liên hệ SES-PA, nhưng cần thêm các nghiên cứu sử dụng thiết kế theo chiều dọc và thí nghiệm. Nghiên cứu này chứng minh tính hữu ích của việc kết hợp các khái niệm từ nhiều cách tiếp cận lý thuyết khác nhau để hiểu rõ hơn về vai trò của các cơ chế khác biệt góp phần tạo ra sự khác biệt trong hành vi sức khỏe theo tình trạng kinh tế - xã hội.

Từ khóa


Tài liệu tham khảo

Hallal PC, Andersen LB, Bull FC, Guthold R, Haskell W, Ekelund U. Global physical activity levels: surveillance progress, pitfalls, and prospects. Lancet. 2012;380:247–57. Thorp AA, Owen N, Neuhaus M, Dunstan DW. Sedentary Behaviors and Subsequent Health Outcomes in Adults: A Systematic Review of Longitudinal Studies, 1996–2011. Am J Prev Med. 2011;41:207–15. Tremblay MS, LeBlanc AG, Kho ME, Saunders TJ, Larouche R, Colley RC, et al. Systematic review of sedentary behaviour and health indicators in school-aged children and youth. Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act. 2011;8:98–120. Tammelin T, Karvinen J. editors. Fyysisen aktiivisuuden suositus kouluikäisille 7–18 -vuotiaille. (The Finnish national guideline for physical activity for children and youth). [Internet]. Opetusministeriö ja Nuori Suomi ry: Helsinki; 2008. Available from: http://www.sport.fi/system/resources/W1siZiIsIjIwMTMvMTEvMTUvMTJfMjFfMzhfNjVfRnl5c2lzZW5fYWt0aWl2aXN1dWRlbl9zdW9zaXR1cy5wZGYiXV0/Fyysisen%20aktiivisuuden%20suositus.pdf. Daly MC, Duncan GJ, McDonough P, Williams DR. Optimal indicators of socioeconomic status for health research. Am J Public Health. 2002;92:1151–7. Kestilä L, Mäki-Opas T, Kunst AE, Borodulin K, Rahkonen O, Prattala R. Childhood adversities and socioeconomic position as predictors of leisure-time physical inactivity in early adulthood. J Phys Act Health. 2015;12:193–9. Gidlow C, Johnston LH, Crone D, Ellis N, James D. A systematic review of the relationship between socio-economic position and physical activity. Health Educ J. 2006;65:338–67. Laaksonen M, Talala K, Martelin T, Rahkonen O, Roos E, Helakorpi S, et al. Health behaviours as explanations for educational level differences in cardiovascular and all-cause mortality: a follow-up of 60 000 men and women over 23 years. Eur J Public Health. 2008;18:38–43. Mäkelä P, Valkonen T, Martelin T. Contribution of deaths related to alcohol use to socioeconomic variation in mortality: register based follow up study. BMJ. 1997;315:211–6. Ferreira I, Van Der Horst K, Wendel‐Vos W, Kremers S, Van Lenthe F, Brug J. Environmental correlates of physical activity in youth–a review and update. Obes Rev. 2007;8:129–54. Elgar FJ, Pförtner T-K, Moor I, De Clercq B, Stevens GWJM, Currie C. Socioeconomic inequalities in adolescent health 2002–2010: a time-series analysis of 34 countries participating in the Health Behaviour in School-aged Children study. Lancet. 2015;385:2088–95. Kaplan RM. Health psychology: where are we and where do we go from here? Mens Sana Monogr. 2009;7:3–9. Bauman AE, Reis RS, Sallis JF, Wells JC, Loos RJ, Martin BW, et al. Correlates of physical activity: why are some people physically active and others not? Lancet. 2012;380:258–71. Edwardson CL, Gorely T. Parental influences on different types and intensities of physical activity in youth: A systematic review. Psychol Sport Exerc. 2010;11:522–35. Sallis JF, Prochaska JJ, Taylor WC. A review of correlates of physical activity of children and adolescents. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2000;32:963–75. Van Der Horst K, Paw MJCA, Twisk JWR, Van Mechelen W. A Brief Review on Correlates of Physical Activity and Sedentariness in Youth: Med. Sci Sports Exerc. 2007;39:1241–50. Michie S, Stralen MM V, West R. The behaviour change wheel: A new method for characterising and designing behaviour change interventions. Implement Sci. 2011;6:42. Cane J, O’Connor D, Michie S. Validation of the theoretical domains framework for use in behaviour change and implementation research. Implement Sci. 2012;7:37. Michie S, Atkins L, West R. The Behaviour Change Wheel - A Guide To Designing Interventions. London: Silverback Publishing; 2014. Uijtdewilligen L, Nauta J, Singh AS, van Mechelen W, Twisk JW, van der Horst K, et al. Determinants of physical activity and sedentary behaviour in young people: a review and quality synthesis of prospective studies. Br J Sports Med. 2011;45:896–905. Craggs C, Corder K, van Sluijs EM, Griffin SJ. Determinants of change in physical activity in children and adolescents: a systematic review. Am J Prev Med. 2011;40:645–58. Lubans DR, Foster C, Biddle SJ. A review of mediators of behavior in interventions to promote physical activity among children and adolescents. Prev Med. 2008;47:463–70. McEachan RRC, Conner M, Taylor NJ, Lawton RJ. Prospective prediction of health-related behaviours with the theory of planned behaviour: A meta-analysis. Health Psychol Rev. 2011;5:97–144. Fishbein M, Ajzen I. Predicting and changing behavior: The reasoned action approach. New York: Psychology Press (Taylor & Francis); 2010. van Stralen MM, Yildirim M, te Velde S, Brug J, van Mechelen W, Chinapaw MJM. What works in school-based energy balance behaviour interventions and what does not? A systematic review of mediating mechanisms. Int J Obes. 2011;35:1251–65. Orbell S, Sheeran P. “Inclined abstainers”: A problem for predicting health-related behaviour. Br J Soc Psychol. 1998;37:151–65. Webb TL, Sheeran P. Does changing behavioral intentions engender behavior change? A meta-analysis of the experimental evidence. Psychol Bull. 2006;132:249–68. Kremers SP, Dijkman MA, de Meij JS, Jurg ME, Brug J. Awareness and habit: Important factors in physical activity in children. Health Educ. 2008;108:475–88. Hamilton K, White KM. Extending the theory of planned behavior: the role of self and social influences in predicting adolescent regular moderate-to-vigorous physical activity. J Sport Exerc Psychol. 2008;30:56–74. Salmon J, Tremblay MS, Marshall SJ, Hume C. Health risks, correlates, and interventions to reduce sedentary behavior in young people. Am J Prev Med. 2011;41:197–206. van Sluijs EMF, Page A, Ommundsen Y, Griffin SJ. Behavioural and social correlates of sedentary time in young people. Br J Sports Med. 2010;44:747–55. Gorely T, Marshall SJ, Biddle SJ. Couch kids: correlates of television viewing among youth. Int J Behav Med. 2004;11:152–63. Pate RR, Mitchell JA, Byun W, Dowda M. Sedentary behaviour in youth. Br J Sports Med. 2011;45:906–13. Norman GJ, Schmid BA, Sallis JF, Calfas KJ, Patrick K. Psychosocial and environmental correlates of adolescent sedentary behaviors. Pediatrics. 2005;116:908–16. Hume C, Van Der Horst K, Brug J, Salmon J, Oenema A. Understanding the correlates of adolescents’ TV viewing: A social ecological approach. Int J Pediatr Obes. 2010;5:161–8. Cerin E, Leslie E. How socio-economic status contributes to participation in leisure-time physical activity. Soc Sci Med. 2008;66:2596–609. Clark DO, Patrick DL, Grembowski D, Durham ML. Socioeconomic status and exercise self-efficacy in late life. J Behav Med. 1995;18:355–76. Estabrooks PA, Lee RE, Gyurcsik NC. Resources for physical activity participation: does availability and accessibility differ by neighborhood socioeconomic status? Ann Behav Med. 2003;25:100–4. Powell LM, Slater S, Chaloupka FJ, Harper D. Availability of physical activity-related facilities and neighborhood demographic and socioeconomic characteristics: a national study. Am J Public Health. 2006;96:1676–80. Penn L, Dombrowski SU, Sniehotta FF, White M. Participants’ perspectives on making and maintaining behavioural changes in a lifestyle intervention for type 2 diabetes prevention: a qualitative study using the theory domain framework. BMJ Open. 2013;3:e002949. Adler NE, Snibbe AC. The role of psychosocial processes in explaining the gradient between socioeconomic status and health. Curr Dir Psychol Sci. 2003;12:119–23. Hankonen N, Absetz P, Haukkala A, Uutela A. Socioeconomic status and psychosocial mechanisms of lifestyle change in a type 2 diabetes prevention trial. Ann Behav Med. 2009;38:160–5. Ross CE, Wu C. The Links Between Education and Health. Am Sociol Rev. 1995;60:719–45. Goldman DP, Smith JP. Can patient self-management help explain the SES health gradient? Proc Natl Acad Sci. 2002;99:10929–34. Abraham C, Sheeran P, Henderson M. Extending social cognition models of health behaviour. Health Educ Res. 2011;26:624–37. Conner M, McEachan R, Jackson C, McMillan B, Woolridge M, Lawton R. Moderating effect of socioeconomic status on the relationship between health cognitions and behaviors. Ann Behav Med. 2013;46:19–30. Godin G, Sheeran P, Conner M, Bélanger‐Gravel A, Gallani MCB, Nolin B. Social structure, social cognition, and physical activity: A test of four models. Br J Health Psychol. 2010;15:79–95. Vasiljevic M, Ng Y-L, Griffin SJ, Sutton S, Marteau TM. Is the intention-behaviour gap greater amongst the more deprived? A meta-analysis of five studies on physical activity, diet, and medication adherence in smoking cessation. Br J Health Psychol. 2016;21:11–30. Nurmi J, Hagger MS, Haukkala A, Araujo-Soares V, Hankonen N. Relations Between Autonomous Motivation and Leisure-Time Physical Activity Participation: The Mediating Role of Self-Regulation Techniques. J. Sport Exerc. Psychol. 2016;In press. Francis JJ, Eccles MP, Johnston M, Walker A, Grimshaw J, Foy R, et al. Constructing questionnaires based on the theory of planned behaviour. Man Health Serv Res. 2010;2004:2–12. Hagger MS, Chatzisarantis NL, Hein V, Soós I, Karsai I, Lintunen T, et al. Teacher, peer and parent autonomy support in physical education and leisure-time physical activity: A trans-contextual model of motivation in four nations. Psychol Health. 2009;24:689–711. Hayes AF. The PROCESS macro for SPSS and SAS [Internet]. 2013 [cited 18 Dec 2015]. Available from: http://processmacro.org/download.html Hayes AF. Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: a regression-based approach. New York: The Guilford Press; 2013. Steiger JH. Tests for comparing elements of a correlation matrix. Psychol Bull. 1980;87:245–51. Preacher KJ. Calculation for the test of the difference between two independent correlation coefficients. [Internet]. 2002. Available from: http://quantpsy.org. Michie S, Abraham C, Whittington C, McAteer J, Gupta S. Effective techniques in healthy eating and physical activity interventions: A meta-regression. Health Psychol. 2009;28:690–701. Ward MM, Guthrie LC, Butler SC. Time perspective and socioeconomic status: A link to socioeconomic disparities in health? Soc Sci Med 1982. 2009;68:2145–51. Mani A, Mullainathan S, Shafir E, Zhao J. Poverty Impedes Cognitive Function. Science. 2013;341:976–80. Klitsie T, Corder K, Visscher TL, Atkin AJ, Jones AP, van Sluijs EM. Children’s sedentary behaviour: descriptive epidemiology and associations with objectively-measured sedentary time. BMC Public Health. 2013;13:1. Teixeira PJ, Carraça EV, Markland D, Silva MN, Ryan RM. Exercise, physical activity, and self-determination theory: A systematic review. Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act. 2012;9:78. Bartholomew Eldridge LK, Markham CM, Ruiter RAC, Fernàndez ME, Kok G, Parcel GS, Planning health promotion programs: an Intervention Mapping approach, 4th ed. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass; 2016. Kok G, Gottlieb NH, Peters G-JY, Mullen PD, Parcel GS, Ruiter RAC, et al. A taxonomy of behaviour change methods: an Intervention Mapping approach. Health Psychol Rev. 2016;10:297–312. Hynynen S-T, van Stralen MM, Sniehotta FF, Araújo-Soares V, Hardeman W, Chinapaw MJM, et al. A systematic review of school-based interventions targeting physical activity and sedentary behaviour among older adolescents. Int Rev Sport Exerc Psychol. 2016;9:22–44. Hankonen N, Heino MTJ, Araújo-Soares V, Sniehotta FF, Sund R, Vasankari T, et al. 'Let's Move It’ – a school-based multilevel intervention to increase physical activity and reduce sedentary behaviour among older adolescents in vocational secondary schools: A study protocol for a cluster-randomised trial. BMC Public Health Rev. 2016;16:451–66. Nickerson RS. Null hypothesis significance testing: A review of an old and continuing controversy. Psychol Methods. 2000;5:241–301. National institute for Health and Welfare. School health survey 2015 results: Lifestyle [Internet]. Terveyden Ja Hyvinvoinnin Laitos. 2015 [cited 4 Dec 4 2015]. Available from: http://www.thl.fi/fi/tutkimus-ja-asiantuntijatyo/vaestotutkimukset/kouluterveyskysely/tulokset/tulokset-aiheittain/elintavat Maxwell SE, Cole DA. Bias in cross-sectional analyses of longitudinal mediation. Psychol Methods. 2007;12:23–44. Cole DA, Maxwell SE. Testing Mediational Models With Longitudinal Data: Questions and Tips in the Use of Structural Equation Modeling. J Abnorm Psychol. 2003;112:558–77. Springvloet L, Lechner L, Oenema A. Can individual cognitions, self-regulation and environmental variables explain educational differences in vegetable consumption?: a cross-sectional study among Dutch adults. Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act. 2014;11:149. Verloigne M, Bourdeaudhuij ID, Tanghe A, D’Hondt E, Theuwis L, Vansteenkiste M, et al. Self-determined motivation towards physical activity in adolescents treated for obesity: an observational study. Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act. 2011;8:1–11.