Table 3.
Perceived Barriers to Exercise by Physical Activity Level
| Item | n (%) ENDORSED ITEMa
|
χ2 (p = )b | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Total (n = 304) | Met Physical Activity Criteria
|
|||
| No (n = 187) | Yes (n = 117) | |||
| I’m too shy or embarrassed | 25 (8.2%) | 13 (7.0%) | 12 (10.3%) | 1.04 (.308) |
| I’m too old | 25 (8.2%) | 17 (9.1%) | 8 (6.8%) | 0.48 (.487) |
| There aren’t any suitable facilities nearby | 31 (10.2%) | 17 (9.1%) | 14 (12.0%) | 0.65 (.420) |
| I might get injured or damage my health | 37 (12.2%) | 26 (13.9%) | 11 (9.4%) | 1.36 (.243) |
| I’m not the sporty type | 37 (12.2%) | 26 (13.9%) | 11 (9.4%) | 1.36 (.243) |
| I’m too overweight | 38 (12.5%) | 27 (14.4%) | 11 (9.4%) | 1.67 (.196) |
| I don’t enjoy physical activity | 40 (13.2%) | 31 (16.6%) | 9 (7.7%) | 4.97 (.026) |
| I haven’t got the right clothes or equipment | 42 (13.8%) | 27 (14.4%) | 15 (12.8%) | 0.16 (.691) |
| I need to rest and relax in my spare time | 45 (14.8%) | 32 (17.1%) | 13 (11.1%) | 2.06 (.152) |
| I’ve got young children to look after | 48 (15.8%) | 32 (17.1%) | 16 (13.7%) | 0.64 (.424) |
| I haven’t got time | 57 (18.8%) | 33 (17.6%) | 24 (20.5%) | 0.39 (.533) |
| I’d never keep it up | 59 (19.4%) | 45 (24.1%) | 14 (12.0%) | 6.73 (.009) |
| There’s no one to do it with | 68 (22.4%) | 41 (21.9%) | 27 (23.1%) | 0.05 (.815) |
| I can’t afford it | 69 (22.7%) | 44 (23.5%) | 25 (21.4%) | 0.19 (.661) |
| My health is not good enough | 75 (24.7%) | 59 (31.6%) | 16 (13.7%) | 12.37 (.000) |
| I have an injury or disability that stops me | 84 (27.6%) | 56 (29.9%) | 28 (23.9%) | 1.30 (.254) |
| I haven’t got the energy | 95 (31.3%) | 69 (36.9%) | 26 (22.2%) | 7.22 (.007) |
| I’m too lazy/not motivated/can’t get started | 103 (33.9%) | 71 (38.0%) | 32 (27.4%) | 3.62 (.057) |
a
Item Endorsement was defined as a score of 5 or higher on a 7 point response scale ranging from 1 “not at all true for me” to 7 “very true for me.” Items are ordered from lowest to highest endorsement rates in the total cohort.
b
Because these comparisons are intended to identify potentially important patterns in a cohort of methadone-maintained smokers, rather than test explicit a priori hypotheses, we did not adjust reported p-values for multiple comparisons; but if we had, the conservative Bonferonni adjusted p-value would have been .05/34 ≈ .001.