Variations in area-level disadvantage of Australian registered fitness trainers usual training locations

BMC Public Health

Research Article

Jannique G. Z. van Uffelen¹  Jason A. Bennie¹  Stuart J. H. Biddle¹  Lauren K. Banting¹  Lukar E. Thornton² 

[1] Active Living and Public Health Program, Institute of Sport, Exercise and Active Living (ISEAL), Victoria University, Melbourne, VIC, Australia;Centre for Physical Activity and Nutrition Research, School of Exercise and Nutrition Sciences, Deakin University, Melbourne, VIC, Australia;

关键词: Personal trainers;    Socioeconomic disadvantage;    Strength training;    Aerobic physical activity;   

DOI  :  10.1186/s12889-016-3250-3

 received in 2015-11-29, accepted in 2016-06-29,  发布年份 2016

来源: Springer

【 摘 要 】

BackgroundLeisure-time physical activity and strength training participation levels are low and socioeconomically distributed. Fitness trainers (e.g. gym/group instructors) may have a role in increasing these participation levels. However, it is not known whether the training location and characteristics of Australian fitness trainers vary between areas that differ in socioeconomic status.MethodsIn 2014, a sample of 1,189 Australian trainers completed an online survey with questions about personal and fitness industry-related characteristics (e.g. qualifications, setting, and experience) and postcode of their usual training location. The Australian Bureau of Statistics ‘Index of Relative Socioeconomic Disadvantage’ (IRSD) was matched to training location and used to assess where fitness professionals trained and whether their experience, qualification level and delivery methods differed by area-level disadvantage. Linear regression analysis was used to examine the relationship between IRSD score and selected characteristics adjusting for covariates (e.g. sex, age).ResultsOverall, 47 % of respondents worked in areas within the three least-disadvantaged deciles. In contrast, only 14.8 % worked in the three most-disadvantaged deciles. In adjusted regression models, fitness industry qualification was positively associated with a higher IRSD score (i.e. working in the least-disadvantaged areas) (Cert III: ref; Cert IV β:13.44 [95 % CI 3.86-23.02]; Diploma β:15.77 [95 % CI: 2.17-29.37]; Undergraduate β:23.14 [95 % CI: 9.41-36.86]).ConclusionsFewer Australian fitness trainers work in areas with high levels of socioeconomic disadvantaged areas than in areas with low levels of disadvantage. A higher level of fitness industry qualifications was associated with working in areas with lower levels of disadvantage. Future research should explore the effectiveness of providing incentives that encourage more fitness trainers and those with higher qualifications to work in more socioeconomically disadvantaged areas.

【 授权许可】

CC BY   
© The Author(s). 2016