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

Bennie JA, Thornton LE, van Uffelen JG, Banting LK, Biddle SJ - BMC Public Health (2016)

Bottom Line: Fewer 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.

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

Affiliation: Active Living and Public Health Program, Institute of Sport, Exercise and Active Living (ISEAL), Victoria University, Melbourne, VIC, Australia. jason.bennie@vu.edu.au.

ABSTRACT

Background: Leisure-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.

Methods: In 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).

Results: Overall, 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]).

Conclusions: Fewer 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.

No MeSH data available.


Related in: MedlinePlus

Percentages (%) of fitness trainers (n = 1,189) in each decile of socioeconomic disadvantage
© Copyright Policy - OpenAccess
Related In: Results  -  Collection

License 1 - License 2
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC4940718&req=5

Fig1: Percentages (%) of fitness trainers (n = 1,189) in each decile of socioeconomic disadvantage

Mentions: The proportion of registered fitness trainers working in each decile of socioeconomic disadvantage is shown in Fig. 1. There was a noticeable trend for a larger proportion of trainers to work in areas with lower levels of disadvantage. Almost five times more trainers worked in the least disadvantaged areas compared to the most disadvantaged areas (17.7 % versus 3.6 %, respectively). Almost half (47 %) of the fitness trainers sampled trained in the three areas that were the least disadvantaged. In contrast, only 14.8 % worked in three most disadvantaged areas (Fig. 1).Fig. 1


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

Bennie JA, Thornton LE, van Uffelen JG, Banting LK, Biddle SJ - BMC Public Health (2016)

Percentages (%) of fitness trainers (n = 1,189) in each decile of socioeconomic disadvantage
© Copyright Policy - OpenAccess
Related In: Results  -  Collection

License 1 - License 2
Show All Figures
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC4940718&req=5

Fig1: Percentages (%) of fitness trainers (n = 1,189) in each decile of socioeconomic disadvantage
Mentions: The proportion of registered fitness trainers working in each decile of socioeconomic disadvantage is shown in Fig. 1. There was a noticeable trend for a larger proportion of trainers to work in areas with lower levels of disadvantage. Almost five times more trainers worked in the least disadvantaged areas compared to the most disadvantaged areas (17.7 % versus 3.6 %, respectively). Almost half (47 %) of the fitness trainers sampled trained in the three areas that were the least disadvantaged. In contrast, only 14.8 % worked in three most disadvantaged areas (Fig. 1).Fig. 1

Bottom Line: Fewer 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.

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

Affiliation: Active Living and Public Health Program, Institute of Sport, Exercise and Active Living (ISEAL), Victoria University, Melbourne, VIC, Australia. jason.bennie@vu.edu.au.

ABSTRACT

Background: Leisure-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.

Methods: In 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).

Results: Overall, 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]).

Conclusions: Fewer 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.

No MeSH data available.


Related in: MedlinePlus