Educational differences in leisure-time physical inactivity: A descriptiveand explanatory study

In this study we aim to explain educational differences in leisure-time phy sical inactivity in terms of psychosocial and material factors. Cross-secti onal data were obtained from the baseline of the Dutch GLOBE study in 1991, including 2598 men and women, aged 15-74 years. Physical inactivity during leisure time was defined as not participating in any activity, such as spo rts, gardening, walking or cycling. Psychosocial factors included in the st udy were coping resources, personality, and stressors. Material factors wer e financial situation, employment status, and living conditions. Logistic r egression models were used to calculate educational differences in physical inactivity. Physical inactivity was more prevalent in lower educational gr oups. Psychosocial factors related to physical inactivity were locus of con trol, parochialism, neuroticism, emotional social support. active problem f ocussing, optimistic and palliative coping styles. Material factors associa ted with physical inactivity were income, employment status and financial p roblems. All correlates of physical inactivity were unequally distributed o ver educational groups, except optimistic and palliative coping. Personalit y and coping style were the main contributors to the observed educational d ifferences in physical inactivity. That is to say, parochialism, locus of c ontrol, neuroticism and active problem focussing explained about half of el evated odds ratios of physical inactivity in the lower educational groups. The material factors, equivalent income and employment status explained abo ut 40% of the elevated odds ratios. Psychosocial and material correlates to gether reduced the odds ratios of lower educational groups by on average 75 %. These results have practical consequences for the design of more effecti ve interventions to promote physical activity. In particular, personality a nd coping style of risk groups, such as lower educational groups, should be taken into consideration at the Future development of these interventions, as well as inequalities in material restrictions related to engaging in ph ysical activity. Supplementary interventions focussing on childhood conditi ons which, partly, influence both personality and physical inactivity may a lso contribute to a reduction of socio-economic differences in physical ina ctivity. (C) 1998 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved