A comparison of physical activity-related social-cognitive factors between those with type 1 diabetes, type 2 diabetes and diabetes free adults

Abstract

Despite strong evidence supporting the benefits of physical activity in managing and preventing diabetes, the majority of Canadians living with or without diabetes are insufficiently active to achieve health benefits. The purpose of this study was to examine the difference in key physical activity-related, psychosocial constructs from major social-cognitive theories/models for individuals with type 1 diabetes (n = 695), type 2 diabetes (n = 1540) and those without diabetes (n = 829). The relatively similar scores reported for the social-cognitive constructs between the groups suggest that theoretically driven, generic population-based strategies operationalizing key socio-cognitive constructs for promoting physical activity may have utility for the general and diabetes specific populations. However, both diabetes groups reported significantly lower (p < 0.001) response efficacy (benefits of physical activity) scores, and higher scores for cons of performing physical activity than the non-diabetes group (p < 0.001). Further, the type 1 diabetes group had significantly higher (p < 0.05) physical activity cons scores than the other two study groups. The findings of this study may guide practitioners in designing population-based, physical activity programs that capitalize on generic strategies for the general and diabetes populations, and identify efforts as to where specific tailoring (e.g. emphasizing physical activity benefits) is needed for those living with diabetes.

Correlates of Physical Activity Among Adults With Type 2 Diabetes: A Systematic Literature Review

“…Upon critical review, studies were excluded for the following result: participants were younger than 18 years of age; physical activity was not part of the study; and studies that examined interventions. This left 18 articles for this review [13][14][15][16][17][18][19][20][21][22][23][24][25][26][27][28][29][30] ; 16 studies were cross-sectional, [13][14][15][16][17][18][19][20][21][22]24,26,[28][29][30] and 3 were prospective. 23,25,27 Furthermore, 2 of the crosssectional studies used in-depth qualitative interview analyses.…”

“…15,20 Across the studies reviewed, physical activity was assessed with questionnaires, telephone surveys, interviews, and one study used pedometers and accelerometry. 14 Self-report physical activity was assessed using a variety of instruments, including the International Physical Activity Questionnaire (N ¼ 1), 14 the Canadian National Population Health Survey (N ¼ 1), 17 the Physical Activity Scale for the Elderly (N ¼ 1), 18 the Leisure-Time Physical Activity Questionnaire (N ¼ 1), 21 the Godin Leisure-Time Exercise (N ¼ 3), [24][25][26] and the Canada Fitness Survey (N ¼ 1). The 2 qualitative studies used in-depth interviews to obtain physical activity data by asking participants about their activity over the past 2 weeks 29 or their past and current physical activity involvement.…”

“…24 Among French Canadian adults, a more positive attitude toward physical activity significantly predicted the intention to be active (b ¼ 0.27, P ,.0001). 13 Swift et al 28 found that attitudes toward exercise explained 43% of the total variance in physical activity.…”

“…Plotnikoff et al 24 found that adults with type 2 diabetes had a more negative attitude toward physical activity compared to individuals without type 2 diabetes (h 2 ¼ 0.017, P , .001). 24 Among French Canadian adults, a more positive attitude toward physical activity significantly predicted the intention to be active (b ¼ 0.27, P ,.0001).…”

“…Poor weather (2) Pearte et al 21 BMI (2) Perceived barriers (2) N/A Age (0) Body image (þ) Education level (0) Income (þ ) Plotnikoff et al 22 N/A Self-efficacy (þ) N/A Perceived behavioral control (þ ) Knowledge (0) Plotnikoff et al 23 N/A Self-efficacy (þ) Social support (þ ) Poor weather (2) Plotnikoff et al 24 N/A Intention (þ ) Social support (þ ) Attitude (þ) Plotnikoff et al 25 N/A Self-efficacy (þ) N/A Plotnikoff et al 26 BMI (2) Perceived barriers (2) N/A Age (2) Perceived behavioral control (þ ) Female gender (2) Income (þ ) Education level (þ ) Disease status/severity (2) Sweet et al 27 N/A Self-efficacy (þ) N/A Autonomous motivation (þ ) Swift et al 28 N/A Perceived barriers (2) Poor weather (2) Attitude (þ) Body image (þ) Thomas et al 29 Age (2) Perceived barriers (2) Availability of facilities (2) Poor weather (2) White et al 30 N/A Perceived barriers (2) N/A Perceived behavioral control (þ ) a N/A indicates not applicable; BMI, body mass index. þ ¼ positive association; 2 ¼ negative association; 0 ¼ no association.…”