In the health research literature, researchers have indicated the potential importance of physical activity preferences in physical activity interventions for years.1–3 Moreover, research findings suggest that physical activity preferences may be beneficial when incorporated into physical activity interventions.4–6 Despite these circumstances, not to mention research in other areas that identified that preference accommodation was linked to positive outcomes, such as improved adherence to treatment and greater client change,7,8 there has been a lack of attempts to incorporate physical activity preferences into physical activity interventions. This gap is likely due, in part, to the limited knowledge in this research area.
Thus, it will likely be beneficial to examine physical activity preferences further. By undertaking additional examinations in this research area, researchers will likely confirm and expand what is known about physical activity preferences. If these prospects are realized, what is learned may be useful to facilitate the incorporation of physical activity preferences into physical activity interventions. These efforts will also aid in addressing the identified gaps, which, in turn, may shed more light on the benefit of physical activity preferences in such interventions. It is also important to highlight that when physical activity preferences are incorporated into physical activity interventions, subjects will likely have more positive feelings about participating in physical activity, which is promising for them, given that Pender’s health promotion model proposes that “when positive emotions or affect are associated with a behavior, the probability of commitment and action is increased.”9(p5)
Due to these prospects, additional research to develop the evidence base about physical activity preferences may be a promising step toward reforming the substantial prevalence of physical inactivity worldwide.10 When physical activity preferences are better understood, they will likely be utilized more effectively to optimize their impacts. Given that physical inactivity has remained a global challenge for a significant period,11–14 there is ground to capitalize on any benefit that physical activity preferences may offer in physical activity interventions.
This approach will likely aid in mitigating the negative consequences that physical inactivity poses on health and society.11–14 It will also likely offer support in attaining the World Health Organization’s goal to reduce worldwide physical inactivity by 15% by 2030.15 These prospects help further reveal the importance of continuing the study of physical activity preferences to facilitate their incorporation into physical activity interventions to capitalize on any benefit they may offer.
Given the significant prospects of further study in this research area, researchers should undertake additional examinations to develop the evidence base about physical activity preferences. This approach holds promise to facilitate the incorporation of physical activity preferences into physical activity interventions. Ideally, incorporating physical activity preferences into such interventions will be a promising step toward combating the substantial prevalence of physical inactivity worldwide.
References
- 1.↑
Abrantes AM, Battle CL, Strong DR, et al. Exercise preferences of patients in substance abuse treatment. Ment Health Phys Act. 2011;4(2):79–87. doi:
- 2.
Doyle CB, Khan A, Burton NW. Recreational physical activity context and type preferences among male and female Emirati university students. Int Health. 2019;11(6):507–512. doi:
- 3.↑
Wong JN, McAuley E, Trinh L. Physical activity programming and counseling preferences among cancer survivors: a systematic review. Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act. 2018;15(1):48. doi:
- 4.↑
Alibhai SMH, Papadopoulos E, Durbano S, et al. Preference-based versus randomized controlled trial in prostate cancer survivors: comparison of recruitment, adherence, attrition, and clinical outcomes. Front Oncol. 2022;12:1033229. doi:
- 5.
Parfitt G, Gledhill C. The effect of choice of exercise mode on psychological responses. Psychol Sport Exerc. 2004;5(2):111–117. doi:
- 6.↑
Thompson CE, Wankel LM. The effects of perceived activity choice upon frequency of exercise behavior. J Appl Soc Psychol. 1980;10(5):436–443. doi:
- 7.↑
Swift JK, Callahan JL, Cooper M, Parkin SR. The impact of accommodating client preference in psychotherapy: a meta-analysis. J Clin Psychol. 2018;74(11):1924–1937. doi:
- 8.↑
Swift JK, Bird MO, Penix EA, Trusty WT. Client preference accommodation for religious/spiritual integration and psychotherapy outcomes in naturalistic practice settings. Psychotherapy. 2022;59(3):392–399. doi:
- 9.↑
Pender N. The Heath Promotion Model Manual. University of Michigan; 2011. https://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/handle/2027.42/85350/HEALTH_PROMOTION_MANUAL_Rev_5-2011.pdf
- 10.↑
World Health Organization. Global Status Report on Physical Activity 2022. 2022. https://iris.who.int/bitstream/handle/10665/363607/9789240059153-eng.pdf?sequence=1
- 11.↑
Ding D, Lawson KD, Kolbe-Alexander TL, et al. The economic burden of physical inactivity: a global analysis of major non-communicable diseases. Lancet. 2016;388(10051):1311–1324. doi:
- 12.
Katzmarzyk PT, Friedenreich C, Shiroma EJ, Lee IM. Physical inactivity and non-communicable disease burden in low-income, middle-income and high-income countries. Br J Sports Med. 2022;56(2):101–106. doi:
- 13.
Lee IM, Shiroma EJ, Lobelo F, et al. Effect of physical inactivity on major non-communicable diseases worldwide: an analysis of burden of disease and life expectancy. Lancet. 2012;380(9838):219–229. doi:
- 14.↑
World Health Organization. Global Health Risks: Mortality and Burden of Disease Attributable to Selected Major Risks. 2009. https://iris.who.int/bitstream/handle/10665/44203/9789241563871_eng.pdf?sequence=1
- 15.↑
World Health Organization. More Active People for a Healthier World. 2018. https://iris.who.int/bitstream/handle/10665/272722/9789241514187-eng.pdf
