FACTORS INFLUENCE THE PHYSICAL INACTIVITY AMONG THE HIGH SCHOOL

STUDENTS IN THE DISTRICT OF JAFFNA, SRI LANKA

S. Thiruvarangan1, C. A. Gnanathasan2
1
Allied Health Sciences Unit, Faculty of Medicine, University of Colombo
2
Department of Clinical Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, University of Colombo

Abstract

Regular physical activity remains an important behavior for preventing Non Communicable
Diseases (NCDs). The period of adolescence represents the transition from childhood to adulthood
and lifetime habits such as regular physical activity are normally begun at this time. But
unfortunately research has indicated that physical activity rates decline consistently during the
adolescent years. This study was aimed to assess Sri Lanka adolescents’ physical activity level and
their perceived barriers. Adolescents students (n = 182) were recruited to the study. Current
physical activity level and perceived barriers to physical activity were assessed in the sample.
Physical activity level was estimated by IPAQ short versions (International Physical Activity
Questionnaire) where participants responded to the instrument with 21 items representing 07
barriers to physical activity using a Likert Type scale. Sum scores were computed. The main
barriers to perform the physical activity were lack of time (), social influence (), lack of will power
() and fear to injury (). Physical inactivity had a significant relationship with lack of time
(p=0.021) and social influence (p=0.041) whereas it had no significant relationship (p>0.05) with
other factors such as lack of will power, lack of energy, fear to injury, lack of skill and lack of
resources. There is a need for future research, which needs to be carried out with larger sample
groups to develop national standardized instrument. It will be helpful for accurately identify
perceived barriers and then recommend changes to enhance physical activity among adolescent
people.

Key words: Physical inactivity, Perceived barriers, Adolescents

1
Introduction
Regular physical activity remains an important behavior for preventing Non Communicable
Diseases (NCDs). The period of adolescence represents the transition from childhood to
adulthood and lifetime habits such as regular exercise are normally begun at this time
(Andersen et al., 1993). But unfortunately research has indicated that physical activity rates
decline consistently during the adolescent years (Trost et al., 2002). There are many factors
that affect participation in physical activity. These included demographic variables,
knowledge, attitudes and beliefs about physical activity (Dishman, 1994). There are two
cognitive variables, which account for physical activity levels: perceived benefits and
perceived barriers. Perceived benefits can positively and barriers can negatively influence the
participation in activity. These barriers have been classified in different ways. In recent years,
examination of perceived physical activity barriers was considered important to contribute to
physical inactivity in samples of adolescents. The purpose of this study was to analyze
perceived barriers to physical activity in the Sri Lanka high school adolescents.

Materials and Methods

Subjects
This study was a descriptive cross-sectional study. And the study was conducted in
Valikamam, Jaffna district between March and April 2013.The Ethics Committee of the
Faculty of Medicine, University of Colombo has approved this study. The random sampling
method is used to select the five schools then convenient sampling method to select 182
adolescent’s student between 16-18 years agreed to participate in this study. There were 95
males (52.2%) and 87 females (47.8%) in this study. They were 16 and 18 years of age (mean
= 17.38).
Procedure
Written informed consents were obtained from all the participants. Initially, the physical
activity level of subjects was assessed based on the international physical activity guidelines
(Sallis et al., 1994). Participants, who performed physical activity more than 600MTEs within
07 days, were classified as active. All subjects were evaluated their perceived barriers to
physical activity by a self-administrative questionnaire. The questionnaire consisted of 21
items. Contents of the items were partially based on those used in previous studies among
young adults (Suchitra, 2008). These items were rated on a 5-point Likert-type scale (Ware,
1993). Subjects were rated in 07 categories of perceived barrier based on the questionnaire;
lack of time, social influence, lack of energy, lack of will power, fear to injury, lack of skill
and lack of resources. Titles in these categories were established in the literature (Suchitra,
1990). Each category consisted of three items. The sums of categories’ scores were used to
calculate total score for the barriers. A preliminary version of the questionnaire was pretested
to a sample of 10 students attending the adolescent of other high schools and who did not
participate in the main study. The purpose of this activity was to determine relevance of the
items. This preliminary study revealed that questionnaire was clear and understandable.
Results
According to the demographic data, majority of the study sample were males 52.2% (n=95).
Most of the participants (52.7%, n=96) were related to the 18 year age group and remains
related to 16 year and 17 year old age groups. More than 73% (n=134) in the sample were
physically inactive with their life style. They are performing the physical activity within a
week less than 600 METs. Out of this sample study the majority are boys (51.5%, n=69) and
18 years old age group is 61.9% (n=83) with sedative life style compare with girls. As the
main barrier to performing the physical activity, lack of time, social influence, lack of will
power and fear to injury have been mentioned by more than 50% of study subjects but
physical inactivity has a significant relationship with lack of time (p=0.021) and social
2
influence (p=0.041) whereas it has no significant relationship (p>0.05) with other factors such
as lack of willpower, lack of energy, fear of injury, lack of skill and lack of resources.

Number of adulscents Barriers Significance

90 (85.2%)
(78.6%)
80 (73.6%)
70
Lack of time 2 = 5.332
(59.3%) p = 0.021 *
60
Social influence 2 = 4.156
50 (45.6%) (47.3%)
p = 0.041 *
40 (35.7%) Lack of energy 2 = 1.927
30 p = 0.165
20 Lack of willpower 2 = 3.087
10 p = 0.079
0
Fear of injury 2 = 0.027
p = 0.868
Lack of skill 2 = 2.115
p = 0.146
Lack of resources 2 = 0.053
p = 0.818
Barriers to being
Figure: The barriers to being physically active Table: The relationship between physical
activity and barriers

Discussion
Despite of dramatic reports, to our knowledge, there is no study that assessed physical activity
barriers for young adult in Jaffna district. We assessed perceived barriers to physical activity
in high school students in Jaffna district. In this study relatively a small sample may be a pilot
for related studies in the future. Not having enough time was the most important barrier for
not participating in physical activity among our samples. The barriers to exercise reported in
the student population are consistent with our findings. One study reported the greatest barrier
was time constraint due to school work, social and family activities on high school students
(Allison et al., 1999). In other two studies, similarly lack of time was cited as most common
barrier by students (Gyurcsik et al., 2004).Barrier to increased activity varied by social class
and measures of socioeconomic status may induce different profiles of perceived barriers
(Chinn et al., 1999). When viewed our analysis this study was a descriptive cross sectional
study which included 182 students, school going adolescents between 16-18 years old age
studying in the Valikamam of Jaffna district. Suchitra Menon (2008) found various barriers to
physical activity; the results showed that lack of will power was the most important barrier.
Lack of time, lack of energy and social influence were also some of the important barriers to
the participants. In this study we found lack of time, social influence and lack of willpower as
important perceived barriers to performing the physical activities. Another result was obtained
by Daskapan and Tuzun (2006) also found barriers were lack of time and lack of self-efficacy
respectively. In this study “lack of time” is similar to the “lack of time” and “lack of self-
efficacy” is similar to the “lack of will power” and both barriers above mentioned were most
important barriers, within the first three. The researcher mentioned that results may not
characterize the general Turkish university students due to sample size. In this study also has
the same problem of the sample size. In this study was used a questionnaire of close ended

3
manner, Ebben Harlen (2008) says that their findings supports the advantage of using open
ended questions as they afford the acquisitions of the ideas that may not possible with closed
ended questions. (Chin and White, 1999) who pointed out lack of time and lack of motivation
as the main causative factors also said that barriers varied according to the age, social class
and socioeconomic position; in this study it also seems to be the same affecting factors among
selected.

Conclusion
Because of a small sample, our results may not characterize the general Jaffna district
students. Also majority of population were males in this study. There is a need for future
research, which will be carried out with larger sample groups and equal gender population to
develop national standardized instrument. It will be helpful to accurately identify perceived
barriers and then recommend changes to enhance physical activity among young people.

References
1. Andersen, L.B. and Haraldsdottir, J. (1993).Tracking of cardiovascular disease risk
factors including maximal oxygen uptake and physical activity from late teenage to
adulthood: an 8 year follow-up study. Journal of Internal Medicine 234:309-315.

2. Allison KR, Dwyer JM, Goldenberg E, et al. Fein A, Yoshida KK, Boutillier M. Male
adolescents’ reasons for participating in physical activity, barriers to participation, and
suggestions for increasing participation. Adolescence. 2005;40: 155-170.
3. Brown S.A. Measuring perceived benefits and perceived barriers for physical activity.
American Journal of Health Behavior. 2005; 29(2): 107-116.
4. Buckworth J, et al. Exercise adherence in college students: issues and preliminary
results. Quest. 2001; 53: 335-345.
5. Cheng KY, Cheng PG, Mak KT, et al. Wong SH, Wong YK, Yeung
EW.Relationships of perceived benefits and barriers to physical activity, physical
activity participation and physical fitness in Hong Kong female adolescents. Journal of
Sports Medicine Physical Fitness. 2003; 43: 523-529.
6. Daskapan, A., Tuzun, E.H.and Eker, L. (2006). Perceived barriers to physical activity
in University students. Journal of Sports Science and Medicine. 5:615-620.
7. Ebben W, Brudzynski, et al. Motivates and barriers to exercise among college
students. Journal of Exercise Physiology. 2008; 11(6).
8. Gyurcsik NC, Bray SR, Brittain DR, et al. Coping with barriers to vigorous physical
activity during transition to university. Family & Community Health. 2004; 27(2):
130-142.
9. Grubbs L, Carter J, et al. The relationship of perceived benefits and barriers to
reported exercise behaviors. Family & Community Health. 2002; 25(2): 76- 84.
10. Haskell WL, Lee IM, Pate RR, et al. Powell KE, Blair SN, Franklin BA, Macera
CA, Heath GW, Thompson PD, Bauman A. Physical activity and public health:
updated recommendation for adults. American College of Sports Medicine and the
American Heart Association. 2007; 39(8): 1423-1434.

4
11. Jones DA., Ainsworth BE, Croft JB et al. Moderate leisure-time activity: who is
meeting the public health recommendations? A national cross sectional study.
Archives of Family Medicine. 1998; 7: 285-289.
12. Kenneth RA, Dwyer JM, Makin S, et al. Perceived barriers to physical activity among
high school students. Preventive Medicine. 1999; 28: 608-615.
13. Sallis, J.F. and Patrick, K. (1994). Physical activity guidelines for adolescents:
consensus statement. Pediatric Exercise Science. 6: 302-14.
14. Suchitra, M. (2008). Determinants of physical activity among young sedentary adults.
Kinesiology Department, state University of New York college, Cortland.

15. Trost, S.G., Pate, R.R., Sallis, J.F., Freedson, P.S., Taylor, W.C., Dowda, M. and
Sırard, J. (2002) Age and gender differences in objectively measured physical activity
in youth. Medicine Science & Sports Exercise, Vol.34.