The Open Collections website will be unavailable July 27 from 2100-2200 PST ahead of planned usability and performance enhancements on July 28. More information here.

UBC Undergraduate Research

UBC Athletics and Recreation : Move More Learn More for First Year Students Lam, Wesley; Su, Danita; Tsung, Annie; Yuan, Michael 2021-04-13

Your browser doesn't seem to have a PDF viewer, please download the PDF to view this item.

Notice for Google Chrome users:
If you are having trouble viewing or searching the PDF with Google Chrome, please download it here instead.

Item Metadata

Download

Media
18861-Lam_W_et_al_KIN464_UBC_Athletics_Recreation_2021.pdf [ 1.93MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 18861-1.0398390.json
JSON-LD: 18861-1.0398390-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 18861-1.0398390-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 18861-1.0398390-rdf.json
Turtle: 18861-1.0398390-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 18861-1.0398390-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 18861-1.0398390-source.json
Full Text
18861-1.0398390-fulltext.txt
Citation
18861-1.0398390.ris

Full Text

         UBC Athletics and Recreation: Move More Learn More for First Year Students     Prepared by: Wesley Lam, Danita Su, Annie Tsung, Michael Yuan Prepared for:   Course Code: KIN 464 University of British Columbia   Date: 13 April 2021       Disclaimer: “UBC SEEDS Sustainability Program provides students with the opportunity to share the findings of their studies, as well as their opinions, conclusions and recommendations with the UBC community. The reader should bear in mind that this is a student research project and is not an official document of UBC. Furthermore, readers should bear in mind that these reports may not reflect the current status of activities at UBC. We urge you to contact the research persons mentioned in a report or the SEEDS Sustainability Program representative about the current status of the subject matter of a report”.  University of British Columbia  Social Ecological Economic Development Studies (SEEDS) Sustainability Program  Student Research Report UBC Social Ecological Economic Development Studies (SEEDS) Sustainability ProgramStudent Research ReportUBC Athletics and Recreation: Move More Learn More for First Year StudentsWesley Lam, Danita Su, Annie Tsung, Michael YuanKey Words: Physical Activity, First Year Students, Barriers, MotivationsUniversity of British ColumbiaSchool of KinesiologyKIN 464: Health Promotion and Physical ActivityDr. Andrea BundonApril 13, 20211Table of ContentsPage Number1. Executive Summary…………………………………………………………….2. Introduction…………………………………………………………………......3. Literature Review….…………………………………………………………...Gaps in Literature………………………………………………………..4. Methods………………………………………………………………………....a. Study Design…………………………………………………………….b. Participants……………………………………………………………....c. Procedures……………………………………………………………….d. Data Collection………………………………………………………….e. Data Analysis…………………………………………………………....5. Results…………………………………………………………………………..a. Demographic Summary……………………………...………………….b. Participant Baseline Physical Activity………………………………….c. Perceptions and Barriers of Physical Activity……………………....…..6. Discussion…………………………….………………………………………...Limitations and Implications for Future Research……………………...7. Recommendations - “RADICAL”……………………………………………..a. [1] Program Structure and Scheduling - RAD…………………………..b. [2] Program and Health Promotion and Integration - I………………….c. [3] Student Accessibility and Retainment - CAL………………………..8. Conclusion………………………………………………………………………9. References……………………………………………………………………….10. Appendices………………………………………………………………………a. Appendix A……………………………………………………………....b. Appendix B……………………………………………………………....c. Appendix C……………………………………………………………....d. Appendix D……………………………………………………………....23357778101212121314141821212223242634344249632Executive SummaryThis study was conducted in partnership with the University of British Columbia (UBC)Athletics and Recreation’s Move More Learn More (MMLM) program to aid in developingon-campus physical activity programming for first year students. The study purpose was toidentify key barriers and motivators of physical activity engagement amongst a variety offirst-year demographic cohorts to gain insight on how the MMLM program could be moreconvenient and marketable to a wider range of individuals. Recent literature highlights theheightened vulnerabilities of first year students to experience significantly large decreases ofphysical activity which predisposes these individuals to negative health outcomes in the future(Bray & Born, 2004; Thomas et al., 2019). Due to COVID-19 restrictions, MMLM currentlyruns a variety of online physical activity and health education classes specifically for Asianfemale-identifying UBC students (UBC, 2021a). With the planned “return to on-campusinstruction and increased levels of on-campus research activity” in the fall, in-person first-yearphysical activity programming can become a reality (UBC, 2021b). Because of the drasticchanges in lifestyle as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic, individuals may be reflecting on theirpast and current physical activity engagements. Therefore, our survey focused on askingquestions regarding intrinsic and extrinsic factors surrounding physical activity behaviours.Our study surveyed a total of 44 participants who identified as one of the following:incoming first years from high school, first years transferring from another institution, currentfirst years, or incoming first years from a gap year. Questions were presented in multiple-choiceformats and likert-type scales. Through the analysis, it was found that the most cited perceivedbarriers against physical activity participation were (in descending order): lack of time, lack ofmotivation, and self consciousness. Interestingly, “lack of friends” was not perceived byparticipants to be a significant barrier which may indicate a shift from socially-driven tohealth-driven physical activity as a result of the pandemic (and social distancing practices).Meanwhile, students acknowledged and agreed with many positive motivators for exercise suchas mental health benefits, long-term health benefits, and appreciation for an active lifestyle. Inconjunction with other survey findings, our research team produced three recommendations ofkey guidelines - RAD-I-CAL (Recurring/Adjustable/Duration, Integration, Cost/Accessibility/Longevity) - for the MMLM program to consider in the development of their novel programtailored for first-year students.Our study brings primary insight from the target population of MMLM’s future programbut it is not without its limitations. These limitations include a small sample size, strictlyquantitative survey, and reporting bias. Although these limitations may create threats to externalvalidity, our results and recommendations serve as a foundation for future research that UBCAthletics and Recreation can implement into their first-year specific physical activity programsin the future. We hope that this study will contribute to the active and ongoing health promotioninitiatives at UBC to better inform and definitively engage incoming students with physicalactivity and healthy long-term practices.3IntroductionThe concept of health, which involves a state of complete physical, mental, and socialwell-being and not merely the absence of disease or infirmity (World Health Organization(WHO), 2021a), has been a mainstay in health promotion and physical activity (PA) for decades(Raphael, 2008). The Move More Learn More (MMLM) program at the University of BritishColumbia (UBC) Vancouver campus initially focused on delivery of PA and health educationtargetted towards Asian women (UBC, 2021a). Currently, MMLM looks to create PAprogramming for first year and incoming students to broaden their target population. PA hasrecently gained traction as a method to promote holistic well-being in many first year universitystudents (Thomas et al., 2019). However, despite the increase in interest, time spent participatingin PA has not increased. These findings have been revealed by relevant studies that haveidentified a significant reduction of PA in both male and female Canadian students during theirfirst year in university (Bray & Born, 2004; Ecker & Hampton, 2015; Thomas et al., 2019).The purpose of this study is to understand the barriers and subjective experiences ofincoming and first year students through the use of surveys, for which responses can be used toidentify key strategies to optimize accessibility, appeal, and convenience of PA programsconducted by MMLM at UBC. Multiple systematic reviews have been conducted in an attemptto evaluate the impact of PA on student’s self-efficacy, self-esteem, quality of life (QOL), andpsychological well-being (Bray & Born, 2004; Joseph et al., 2013; Serrano et al., 2015).Literature ReviewThe recommended physical activity guidelines for adults is at least 150 minutes ofmoderate intensity aerobic PA or at least seventy-five minutes of vigorous-intensity PAthroughout the week (WHO, 2021b). Aerobic exercise can be described as any activity that can4be sustained for more than a few minutes while the heart, lungs, and muscles work over time(WHO, 2021b). Moderate-intensity PA requires an average amount of effort and a noticeableincrease of heart rate (WHO, 2018). Meanwhile, vigorous-intensity PA requires a large amountof effort and causes rapid breathing and a substantial acceleration in heart rate (Haskell et al.,2007; WHO, 2018). Current findings suggest that PA has numerous benefits, including decreasedrisk of heart disease, improved QOL, lower links to anxiety and depression, and reduced declinein incidences of long-term illness (Bray & Born, 2004; Haskell et al., 2007). Siefken et al. (2019)found that individuals who meet the WHO recommendations of PA (moderate-intensity PA 150minutes per week (WHO, 2021b)) showed reduced symptoms of depression and anxiety. Despitethese benefits, only thirty-eight percent of first year Canadian University students were meetingthe WHO recommendations for moderate-intensity and vigorous-intensity of exercise, andfifty-six percent of students did not participate in adequate PA during university in 2019 (Sevil etal., 2018; Thomas et al., 2019).Both incoming and first year university students have reported the transition from highschool to post secondary as a taxing experience (Elffers & Oort, 2012; Thomas et al., 2019).While a transition can offer a fresh start for some individuals, it is a difficult period as studentsneed to integrate into a new social and academic environment (Elffers & Oort, 2012; Sevil et al.,2018). In a study conducted by Ecker & Hampton (2015), students reported that the lack ofmotivation and the stresses associated with transitioning to university life can serve as barriers topartaking in regular PA. Moreover, interpersonal factors such as peer influence and body image;along with structural factors influence the frequency in which university students participate inPA (Thomas et al., 2019). The persistence of PA in first-year students throughout theirpost-secondary education is imperative to their long term health, as habits developed during this5time are generally maintained throughout the lifespan and are predictive of later health outcomes(Thomas et al., 2019).Compared with high school students, university students showed significantly less PAlevels and intrinsic motivation (Sevil et al., 2018) and only one third of students who were activein high school remained active in university (Bray & Born, 2004). Intrinsically motivatedstudents engage in activities for the purpose of pleasure, enjoyment, and interest (Sevil et al.,2018); whereas extrinsically motivated students engage in activities for external purposes, suchas to receive rewards or to avoid punishment (Sevil et al., 2018). Additionally, amotivation isrepresented by the absence of either intrinsic or extrinsic motivation (Sevil et al., 2018). Sevil etal. (2018) found that amotivation increased across the transition from high school to university,making it more difficult for students to reach the recommended levels of moderate-to vigorousPA. Moreover, PA and motivation have a bidirectional interaction - students who comply withPA recommendations are found to have higher intrinsic motivation, and those with higherintrinsic motivation will be more likely to seek out active behaviors (Serrano et al., 2015; Sevil etal., 2018). University students have been shown to participate in more PA when it is requested orfacilitated by an organization (Sun et al., 2017), in particular, the participation in intramural sportremains constant throughout the year (Thomas et al., 2019). Furthermore, it is suggested thatuniversity coordinated PA may be more effective for engaging students, as students are morefocused on intrinsic (competence-mastery) factors of motivation, rather than the extrinsic(stimulus-avoidance) factors that come with PA in high school settings (Cooper et al., 2012).Gaps in the LiteratureAlthough current literature vastly supports the benefits of PA among first year universitystudents, there is limited evidence comparing male and female PA levels, behaviors, and barriers6(Thomas et al., 2019). Males have generally reported greater frequency, duration, and intensitywhen engaging in PA, however, there is insufficient understanding on the reasons why this maybe (Ecker & Hampton, 2015). Furthermore, exploring the changes of PA and how its barrierschange across the academic year would help in analyzing the overall reductions in PA (Thomaset al., 2019). Multiple systematic reviews have concluded that marginalized populations are lesslikely to participate in PA essentially increasing the prevalence of negative health outcomes(Frederick et al., 2020; Ironside et al., 2020; Martin, 2013), thus further research is needed toidentify the barriers that these individuals face. Discrmination against physical appearances is aprevalent barrier in society (Macdonald et al., 2009), as such, an ongoing focus on marginalizedpopulations was applied to our study.LGBTQ + students have less positive perceptions of all aspects of PA compared to theirnon-LGBTQ + counterparts (Frederick et al., 2020). Moreover, Frederick et al. (2020) found anegative correlation between PA and stress, where increases in PA decreased stress associatedwith body norms, stereotypes and homophobia within the LGBTQ + community. Additionally,Ironside et al. (2020) found that Indigenous individuals who are more physically active havegreater feelings of cultural collectedness, including relations to spirituality, traditions, andexploration. Individuals with disabilities who participate in PA have heightened perceptions ofindependence and personal success (Martin, 2013). Despite clear evidence of the advantages ofPA for minority groups, further research detailing the specific needs would be beneficial for thedevelopment of more inclusive programs catered to these individuals.7MethodsStudy DesignAn online survey was chosen as the method of data collection to support the MMLMprogram at UBC. The usage of a web-based survey facilitates the inclusion of a more diverserange of participants without geographical constraint (Dillman et al., 2014). Online surveys havebecome a staple way of survey distribution given its ease of use, flexibility, and minimal pressureon the respondent’s end (Dillman et al., 2014). Additionally, Harwell (n.d.) highlights thatsurveys can be useful in generating data from a small sample that can be generalized to a largerpopulation. The post-positivist philosophical worldview that underlies the study compliments thequantitative approach that has been chosen. This framework will allow researchers to gain anobjective understanding of first year students’ perceptions of PA. The findings from this studywill be beneficial in recognizing the priorities when designing appealing PA programs for futurefirst year student populations.ParticipantsThe theoretical population in this study will be incoming and first year students at UBC.The persistence of PA in first-year students throughout their post-secondary education isimperative to their long term health, as habits developed during this time are generallymaintained throughout the lifespan and are predictive of later health outcomes (Thomas et al.,2019); therefore this cohort will be studied. The inclusion of older adults would be undesirablebecause older age often leads to different patterns of PA (Keating et al., 2005) which may resultin differences in perceived barriers and motives. Therefore, it is crucial to study the adverseperceptions of PA and educate this cohort through health promotion strategies (Thomas et al.,2019). Moreover, this age period is a critical period for overall cognitive, and socioemotional8development where absence of PA will negatively impact the well-being and academicperformance in adolescents (Archer & Garcia, 2014).Incoming and first year university students have reported the transition from high schoolto post secondary as a taxing experience (Elffers & Oort, 2012; Thomas et al., 2019). While atransition can offer a fresh start for some individuals, it is a difficult period as students mustintegrate into a new social and academic environment (Elffers & Oort, 2012; Sevil et al., 2018).Holmes and Rahe (1967) developed a Social Readjustment Rating Scale (SRRS) exploring therelationships between stressful life events and physical illness (Gadzella, 1994). Based on theSRSS, the beginning or end of school is within the top twenty stressful events an individual mayexperience in their lifetime, along with divorce, death, and prison (Scully et al, 2000). Chronicexposure to stressful events rated high on the SRRS are positively correlated with an increasedrisk of cardiovascular disease, thromboembolic stroke, hypertension, type 2 diabetes,osteoporosis, obesity, along with anxiety and depression (Haskell et al., 2007).The survey will not discriminate between sub-populations of first year students, as thegoal of the study is to understand how MMLM can create an inclusive and welcoming PAprogram for all.ProceduresAn online survey has been formulated using Qualtrics which will serve as the method ofdata collection. The survey consists of thirty-two questions that provide insight on first year andincoming students’ perceptions of PA. Questions asked in the survey will cover a variety ofperspectives and motivations over varying answer formats. Demographic questions regardingtopics such as the respondents’ age and sex are important for researchers to analyse thedifferences amongst pre-existing cohorts within the sample, and to discern whether the results9are generalizable to the population or for comparison to related research (Hughes et al., 2016).Questions regarding the respondents’ baseline PA in aerobic, resistance, and flexibility-relatedexercise, as well as their perception of PA will be inquired through self-reporting scales, multiplechoice and likert scale questions. Self-reporting scales were chosen to allow participants to bestreflect their approximate engagement levels in PA. Additionally, five point likert scale questionswere implemented into the survey in order to understand the perceptions of participants ingreater depth without hindering the ability to differentiate between the varying degrees ofresponses (Xu & Leung, 2018).The survey will be promoted through word-of-mouth and social media platforms such asFacebook, Messenger, Instagram, targeting up to 100 current and incoming first-year students atUBC. Upon beginning the survey, participants will be prompted to fill out a consent formdetailing the research purpose, procedures, project outcomes, potential risks or benefits, andother ethical concerns pertaining to privacy. Due to the prevalence of social media and the broadinclusion criteria of the study, the recruitment target will be 100 unique participants. The surveywill remain open until the maximum number of participants have contributed to the study, oruntil April 1st, 2021. If the number of participants does not reach the minimum target of fortystudents, the survey will remain open until the minimum requirement has been met.Following the data collection phase, the data will be analyzed using descriptive statisticalanalyses. Analyses based on measures of central tendency and variability can be derived fromthe survey responses, and used to compare the differences in perceptions of PA between cohorts.The objective of analysing and interpreting data is to reveal trends that exist in the targetpopulation. Survey questions allow participants to express barriers associated with current PAprogramming - such as cost and comfortability. These trends can allow us to identify the10downfalls of current PA programs; as well as how future programs can be tailored towards thefuture target population.Data CollectionA survey will be used to assess participant PA levels: (1) Baseline Physical ActivityQuestionnaire (BPAQ) , (2) Perception of Physical Activity (PPA), and (3) Motivations BehindEngaging in Physical Activity (MBEA).The BPAQ will be used to collect information on the intensity, frequency, and duration ofaerobic, resistance, and flexibility training that the participants engaged in. The questionnaireasks about how often students participated in certain activities that varied in frequency over thepast week by selecting one of the following options: “0 days”, “1 day”, “2 days”, “3 days”, “4days”, “5 days”, “6 days”, and “7 days”. Participants are also asked to indicate the duration ofone bout as one of the following: “0-15 minutes”, “15-30 minutes”, “30-45 minutes”, “45-60minutes”, and “60 minutes or more”. Activities of aerobic exercise includes walking, running,biking, swimming, elliptical, and stairmaster; resistance exercise includes free weights, weightmachines, body weight, and resistance bands; and flexibility exercise includes stretching, yoga,tai chi, and pilates. Responses from this section allow for the ability to determine if the cohort ofparticipants are within typical PA ranges found in previous studies, and further allows us todetermine associations between activity level and activity type. Moreover,  self-report measures,specifically surveys, targeting sedentary populations are likely to experience floor effects inwhich the lowest score available is too high for some participants (Tudor-Locke & Myers, 2001).Taking this into consideration, the lower limit of this section of the questionnaire is set to zero,with no defined upper limit. All responses from this questionnaire will be captured in a datacollection sheet and compared using descriptive statistical analyses.11The PPA will be used to measure the general perceptions of PA among incoming andfirst-year students. This questionnaire is designed to measure participants’ general perceptions ofPA prior to starting post-secondary or retrospectively at the start of post-secondary. Thequestionnaire is separated into two sections. The first section examines perception of PA inuniversity and prior to university. The participants are provided with a five-point scale: 1 beingnegative perceptions ranging from “very uncomfortable”, “I hate it” to “highly unlikely”,whereas 5 consists of positive perceptions ranging from “very comfortable”, “I love it” to“highly likely” respectively. Participants are asked to select the response that best describes theirusual habits. The second section examines the perceived barriers of PA. Participants are firstasked which barriers affect their current participation in PA, then whether the barriers will affecttheir ability to participate in PA in post-secondary. Participants are provided with a five-pointscale: 1 being “highly unlikely” and 5 being “highly likely”.The MBEA is used to examine the motives to PA as well as overall PA behaviors. Thequestionnaire consists of four parts. The motives of PA defined by the questionnaire includesenjoyment reasons, health and medical reasons, engagement-based reasons, and interpersonalreasons. Enjoyment reasons of participating in PA includes being active, doing something one isgood at, feeling alert during the day, and feeling less guilt when indulging in cravings. Moreover,health and medical reasons, including exercising to alleviate pain, keep health and avoidingillness, receiving life-long benefits, and positive benefits to one’s mental health and ability todestress. Engagement-based reasons include partaking in PA due to its opportunity for socialinteraction or a way to meet new people, wanting to challenge oneself, to get out of the house,and because they may have someone to exercise with. Lastly, interpersonal reasons include theboosting of energy levels, increased feelings of relatedness, increased feelings of control,12increased self-esteem and positive body image, happiness, weight maintenance, and weight loss.Each factor is measured on a five-point scale, from 1 being “strongly agree” to motives behindPA and 5 being being a “strongly disagree” to motives behind PA. The responses from theMBEA will provide insight about which category of motivations are valued the highest by thetarget population. Using these insights, recommendations can be made about how MLMM canshift the priorities and purposes of PA programs to appeal to the target population.Data AnalysisThe quantitative results derived from the survey process will be obtained through theQualtrics database, where raw data will be compiled. To illustrate the findings that werecollected from the participants, descriptive statistical analysis will be generated using the JASPprogram. Using descriptive statistics based on measures of central tendency and variance, graphswill be produced to aid visualization and enhance the interpretation of data. The use ofdescriptive statistics are advantageous in determining normality of data and to understandstatistical trends (Ho & Yu, 2015). This form of analysis will provide a clear overview of the datato allow researchers to numerically evaluate the relationships between the data collectedregarding PA behaviours and attitudes among the sample population (Ho & Yu, 2015). Usingthese measures, UBC Athletics and Recreation can tailor their programs to better suit the specificneeds and concerns described by the survey questions to create programming that betteremcopasses a diverse range of first year students.ResultsDemographic SummaryOur survey collected the demographic characteristics of 44 (n=44) participants (seeAppendix B). Participants in this sample were on average 18.07 years of age (1 < 20 years), with1329 participants (64.4%) in first year, 12 (26.7%) incoming first years from high school, 1 (2.2%)incoming first year from a gap year, and 3 (6.7%) incoming first years from another institution orfaculty (See Table B.1.). Most participants’ identified as cisgender, with 24 (54.5%) females and19 (43.2%) males (See Table B.2.). However, 2.3% of the participants did not disclose theirbiological sex (See Table B.2.). Moreover, 37 (77.8%) of participants identified asheterosexual/straight, with the reamining 23.2% identifying as either, bisexual, asexual,pansexual, or questioning (See Table B.3.). A majority of the participants were single (81.8%),4.5% were dating casually, and 13.6% were in a monogamous relationship (See Table B.6).Lastly, 31.1% of participants were employed, compared to 20.0% being unemployed (See TableB.4.).Participant Baseline Physical ActivityFrom our survey responses, the average aerobic exercise was 190.2 minutes/week, with59.6% of participants exercising for at least 30 minutes during each session (See Table C.1.,C.7.). The majority (81.8%) of students were engaging in moderate-vigorous intensity PA (SeeTable C.1.). The most common methods of aerobic exercise included walking (62.7%) andrunning (51.2%) (Figure C.1). For those engaging in resistance exercise (63.4%), the averageresistance exercise was 146.5 minutes/week, with the majority using free weights (81.3%) andbody weight (73.6%) (See Table C.7.; Figure C.3). However, it was found that 16.1% of thesample did not engage in resistance exercise at all (See Table C.4.). It was also found that 40.9%of participants did not engage in flexibility-related exercise, with 47.7% engaging in stretchingfor an average of 43.3 minutes per week (See Table C.5; Figure C.2). 82.9% of engagingparticipants also reported that each flexibility-related exercise session was between 0-15 minutes(See Table C.5.).14Perceptions and Barriers of Physical ActivityWhen examining data regarding perception of PA, 82.1% of participants claimed thatthey either liked or loved PA, with 0.0% of the sample disliking or hating PA (See Figure D.3.).Participants engaged in PA for reasons associated with being active (90.0%), maintaining goodhealth (85.0%), destressing or benefiting mental health (80.0%) receiving life-long healthbenefits (75.0%), and to get out of the house (75%) (See Figs D.5., D.6., D.7.). Additionally,participants rated exercise as helpful in increasing self esteem and positive body image (87.5%),being happy (85%), and maintaining weight (77.5%) (See Figure D.8.). It was found that 80% ofparticipants were most comfortable exercising in a private space in solitude, while 72.5% ofparticipants were either comfortable or very comfortable exercising with friends in bothrecreational and formal PA settings (See Figure D.9.). Participants expressed most interest inUBC workout spaces such as the ARC or Birdcoop (70.0%) and intramurals (65.0%), while72.5% of participants expressed disinterest in the UBC Aquatics venue (See Figure D.4.). Inaddition, participants listed having the lack of time (87.5%) as the biggest barrier to PAengagement, followed by lack of motivation (57.5%) (See Figs D.1., D.2.). Interestingly, havinga lack of friends to exercise with was not a barrier to PA engagement, with 72.5% of participantsrating lack of friends as being a (highly) unlikely barrier to PA (See Figure D.2.).DiscussionIn the present study we used a prospective design to gain an understanding of PAintention, behavior, and perceived barriers of PA during students’ transition from highschool touniversity. The main purpose of this study was to identify the barriers and subjective experiencesof incoming and first year students in order to identify key strategies to optimize accessibility,appeal, and convenience of PA programs conducted by MMLM at UBC. In addition, we15investigated current PA behavior as an additional predictor of students’ perceptions of PA levelsin university. Overall, the findings supported an idea that students’ current PA activity levelswere associated with perceived barriers in post secondary. Current behaviors accounted forsignificant explained variance in predicting both barriers and experiences.According to WHO (2021b), the recommended PA guidelines for adults is at least 150minutes of moderate intensity aerobic PA or at least seventy-five minutes of vigorous-intensityPA throughout the week. Based on our analysis of current PA level, we have divided studentsinto 2 groups- students who meet the PA guidelines versus students who do not meet the PAguidelines. Our results indicated that only 59.6% of participants engaged in the recommendedlevels of aerobic PA per day (thirty minutes or more), whereas 40.4% of participants were notmeeting the recommended PA guidelines (WHO, 2021b) (See Table C.1.). The differences ofcurrent PA levels between these two groups is a significant predictor of PA during the firstsemester of university (Kwan et al., 2019). These findings suggest that MMLM may need toconsider a holistic approach in order to provide equal opportunities of PA in students’ universityexperience.The overall findings of our study were congruent with many other studies that have foundtime to be a strong predictor of PA in university (Thomas et al., 2019). However, our findingssuggest that a lack of friends was a significant, but comparatively weaker barrier affectingparticipants. For participants who are currently not meeting the recommended PA guidelines,lack of friends (4.8%) and lack of physical competence (14.3%) were significantly greaterperceived barriers compared to those who are engaging in recommended PA (See Figure D.11.).On the contrary, cost (19.0%) and lack of motivation (35.7%)  were substantially strongerbarriers among participants who are currently meeting PA guidelines (See Figure D.12.).16However, time and self-esteem barriers were found to be similarly perceived among the studentswho are currently meeting the recommended PA levels and students who are not meetingrecommended levels; with time rated as 38.1% and 45.2%, and self-consciousness rated at 16.7%and 21.4% respectively (See Figs D.11. and D.12.). Berry et al. (2018) found that exercise foryoung adults needs to be targeted towards them specifically. Offering PA programs in variousdurations throughout the week would better accommodate students with varying schedules.Moreover, programs that are tailored towards specific cohorts can reduce feelings ofself-consciousness among students (Berry et al., 2018). The implementation of theserecommendations would allow UBC Athletics and Recreation to gain a deeper understandingabout the knowledge, perceptions, and awareness among first year university students from aspectrum of backgrounds (Berry et al., 2018). Based on these findings, we were able to elaborateon previous research on the topic, and ultimately construct recommendations based on threedistinct themes.Furthermore, Sun et al. (2017) found that university students are more likely toparticipate in more PA when it is requested or facilitated by an organization, such as intramuralsport (Thomas et al., 2019). In contrast to those findings, the present results revealed that 65% ofparticipants are likely to participate in intramural sports offered by UBC Athletics andRecreation (See Figs D13. and D.14.). UBC Recreation currently has competitive, recreational,and Just for Fun teams with 10 league categories available to students (UBC Recreation andAthletics, 2021). Recreational and Just for Fun leagues differ in that recreational teams aresimilar in all aspects of competitive teams but are played at a lower intensity and studentstypically have beginner to intermediate skill level in the sport. On the other hand, Just for Funteams eliminate team structure and tiers, which creates an inclusive environment that invites17everyone to participate (UBC Recreation and Athletics, 2021.). Intramural sports provide anopportunity for students’ to improve their athletic, physical and social skills; positivelycontribute to their education and well-being; and improve their overall self-esteem (Kanters &Forester, 1997). As Kanters & Forester (1997) suggests, hosting Intramural sport specifically forfirst year students at UBC will assist in overcoming many participants' perceived barriers.On the contrary UBC Aquatics was perceived as the least popular venue, with individualswho currently meet WHO PA guidelines only 7.70% likely use the space, and 12.5% ofindividuals who do not meet WHO guidelines (See Figs D.13. and D.14.). Although 74% ofCanadians enjoy swimming for fun and recreation (Life Saving Society, 2021), there are twosignificant barriers that reduce the popularity of UBC Aquatics. The first barrier is cost. Astudent membership at UBC Aquatics requires students to be enrolled in courses and have paidthe Athletics and Recreation fee of 230.82 dollars (AMS Student Nest, 2021; UBC, 2021c).Archibald & Feldman (2008) has found the real cost of a full-time student’s university educationhas grown substantially over the last seventy-five years. With this in mind, students’ oftenoverlook their health, in order to pursue their education (Archibald & Feldman, 2008). Moreover,self-esteem is also a contributing factor in why individuals’ are not likely to use the facility.Embarrassment and self-consciousness are all factors correlated with public swimmingparticipation (James, 2000). Body image is a big issue during adolescence and early adulthoodand many university students are unhappy with their physical appearance (Pop, 2016). To reduceself consciousness some individuals had developed strategies to make themselves less visibleincluding covering up their bodies, staying in groups, swimming at remote venues and avoidingpools altogether (James, 2000). The recommendations outlined in this section center around theidea of group membership and inclusivity. Our hope is that students will feel more comfortable18exercising around familiar cohorts (Byrne et al., 1967) and thus increase the likelihood ofengagement in low popularity venues.Lastly, the average perception of “lack of friends'' being a barrier to participation in PAbetween the two groups was 3.6% (See Figs D.11. and D.12.). Because of the drastic changes inlifestyle, individuals may be prompted to reflect on their PA experiences, comparing their currentengagement with pre-pandemic engagement. As such, a shift from socially-driven tohealth-driven physical activity has demonstrated to be a function of the COVID-19 pandemic(and social distancing practices) (Hemanth, 2020). Since the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic inMarch 2020, numerous restrictions have been placed to ensure our safety (ProvincialGovernment of British Columbia, 2021). Currently, a maximum of 10 people are allowed togather outdoors and many indoor PA facilities are limited (Provincial Government of BritishColumbia, 2021). Due to a new norm of “pandemic life” and “self-isolation”, participants’ mayhave become accustomed to solitude (Hemanth, 2020). It is important to consider the effects ofthe COVID-19 pandemic on students’ perceptions and barriers of PA.Limitations and Implications for Future ResearchSome limitations and challenges that were present throughout the course of the currentstudy included the disadvantages to a strictly quantitative survey, reporting bias, and difficultyobtaining a significant sample size.Quantitative Survey: LimitationsPA participation is multifactorial and includes many subjective experiences. The currentstudy attempts to quantify many of these unique experiences through likert-type scales, whichwere limited to the variables identified by the research team. This may be disadvantageous asthere may be many other factors or barriers resulting in the decline of PA participation in19first-years (Thomas et al., 2019). To address this limitation, a text-box was provided for anymultiple-answer questions allowing for any factors that were not included in the original surveyoptions. Questions pertaining to perceived barriers and types of exercise included the text-box aswell. All participants selected variables presented in the survey, but only several participantssubmitted additional barriers to their PA. By taking a quantitative stance, the responses receivedare much more structured. Although quantitative responses are more easily organized andanalysed, qualitative questionnaire and interview would provide more breadth of knowledge.In retrospect, a mixed-method study would combine the efficiency of obtainingquantitative data, while also providing insight to unique and subjective experiences of the sampleusing qualitative data. The inclusion of semi-structured interviews with select participants wouldallow for greater interpretation of findings specific to the first-year UBC experience.Reporting BiasesThe analysis conducted on the data gathered may be influenced by response biases, whereparticipants may answer untruthfully, subconsciously or intentionally. Reporting biases are ofteninfluenced by social desirability, where participants may respond in the most socially acceptableway. Subjects may be prone to exhibiting acquiescence - agreeing with statements regardless oftheir content, especially when they do not fully understand the question; and extremity - thetendency to select the most extreme response categories (Kowalski et al., 2018). To minimizesocial desirability, participants were informed prior to the start of the survey that responsesubmissions would remain anonymous. To minimize the effect of acquiescence, the currentstudy’s questionnaire defined or provided examples for terminology where applicable. Lastly, thedata analysis also showed signs of disinterest throughout the questionnaire, as seen whenparticipants responded in optional text-boxes with items already provided within the original20survey. Disinterest in surveys often lead participants to respond less carefully,  resorting toextremity bias, for which future studies may consider the length when designing a survey.Small Sample SizeWith 44 respondents, our sample size is very small compared to the average enrollmentsize of 8442 first-year students within the past five years (UBC, 2021e). As a prominentlimitation of our study, our small sample size limits the ability to declare true positives, and inturn reduces the ability to make profound or justifiable claims (Faber & Fonseca, 2014).Furthermore, a small sample size greatly impacts the external validity of the study, specifically asproduced through low population validity, or the ability for a sample to be generalized to abroader population (Kowalski et al., 2018). This study may not be representative of the entirefirst-year population at UBC, which makes it difficult to conclude whether or not results aregeneralisable, or that the suggested recommendations would be effective for the population.Implications of our study may not holistically capture the needs of the broader first-yearpopulation, but should serve as a general consensus and a foundation for future research.In addition to sampling only incoming and current first-year students, future studies couldextend the inclusion criteria to all undergraduate (second- and upper-year) students, asking themto look retrospectively at their own first-year experiences. Surveying upper-year students wouldprovide an alternative perspective from individuals who have fully experienced and reflectedupon their first-year. Upper-year students have the ability to provide insight as to whether or notUBC programs have met their expectations for PA in first-year, while incoming students wouldonly be able to provide a prospective standpoint on PA engagement. Because our questionnairewas promoted through social media and word of mouth, additional changes to promote a largersample could include putting up posters around UBC to recruit students who do not use social21media. These considerations would better support the generalisation of findings andrecommendations for PA programs tailored to first-years.RecommendationsOur recommendations are organized under the acronym “RAD-I-CAL” which stands for“Recurring, Adjustable, Duration”, “Integration”, “Cost, Accessibility and Longevity”. Theseconcepts are grouped under three key recommendations to improve the MMLM program’smarketability and attractiveness to first-year students.[1] Program Structure and Scheduling - RADReferring to figure (See Figure D.1), one-third of participants cited “lack of time” to bethe major perceived barrier against PA participation in their first year at university. This suggestsa difficulty to fit in and make time for PA within their busy schedules. The concepts behindRecurring, Adjustable, and Duration is to offer specific classes within a given program that recurmultiple times in a set time-frame - for example, a month or biweekly. Schedules of classesshould be published in advance to allow students to pre-plan their PA and give them moreoptions to attend an activity that is within their interest and availability. Respondents alsoshowed an even distribution of their personal current exercise times for both aerobic andresistance exercise per session (See Table C.1 & C.3). Therefore we also recommend that theduration of these classes vary in duration.Example of an offered schedule for a specific class-type:Zumba- Tuesday, February 2nd - 4pm to 4:45pm (45 minutes)- Friday, February 12th - 11am to 11:30am (30 minutes)- Wednesday February 24th - 7pm to 8pm (1 hour)22Adjustable refers to the adaptation of class content based on the duration, location, andequipment available for a given class-time. It also refers to the adjustability of class organizationand structure. The majority of students perceived PA as a “way to get out of the house”  and alsoagreed that they engaged with exercise because they like “being active” (See Figure D.5 & D.7).Because of this, MMLM should consider a balance of drop-in and membership restrictedprograms to accommodate both casual and more serious PA partakers.Overall, MMLM’s current program structure offers a diverse set of classes and activitiesavailable for its members. Offering a wider range of time slots would improve the reach of theprogram to first year students. Future iterations and adjustments to scheduling could be guidedby analysis of participant preferences and attendance data.[2] Program and Health Promotion and Integration - IWith the literature highlighting the influential and important role of post-secondaryinstitutions in shaping the attitudes of its students, we also recommend involving campus-life andresidence stakeholders in the marketing and promotion of MMLM programs as a part of studenthealth (Elffers & Oort, 2012). With 6% of UBC first-years living on-campus and the popularityand high-volume attendance of UBC’s Imagine Day (UBC, 2014), residence and campus-lifecoordinators have an invaluable opportunity to encourage first year students to take advantage ofMMLM programs and adopt healthy practices from the beginning of their university careers.We recommend MMLM to negotiate and implement a program or short-term event withUBC-Recreation and gym spaces where first-year students get exclusive access to these PAvenues. This recommendation is made with consideration of Ontario Public Health’s stakeholderwheel model to identify the roles and relations of figures in the implementation of healthpromotion projects (Snelling & Meserve, 2016). The “Core” sector of the stakeholder wheel23would be the MMLM coordinators who are at the heart of the project; campus/residence-lifeworkers would fall under the “Involved” sector of the stakeholder wheel of health promotionwhere they are frequently consulted and involved with the direct planning and implementation ofthe program through their advertisement and educational strategies to the first-year population.UBC exercise space coordinators (such as the ARC gym) would be part of the “Supportive”sector where they facilitate access to their spaces and provide expertise and experience to helpshape the program before and during its implementation. Lastly, “Peripheral” stakeholders of thispotential program would consist of other UBC staff members, particularly professors of first-yearclasses, and the School of Kinesiology society. It would be beneficial for these figures to beknowledgeable of this opportunity to aid in the support and spread of this first-year specificprogram.This unique opportunity could act as a gateway catalyst to help first-years becomefamiliar and more comfortable with these spaces and facilitate the students’ self-efficacy toengage within these spaces. Additionally, this “first-year only” advertisement could be aneffective marketing strategy to attract and motivate these students to be involved as it uniquelypertains to their cohort.[3] Student Accessibility and Retainment - CALOur last recommendation is concerned with building rapport with all future first-yearstudent cohorts (and the entire future UBC community by extension) to ensure the long-termsuccess of MMLM’s first-year tailored programs. CAL stands for Cost, Accessibility, andLongevity. With 11% of students citing “cost of exercising” as a barrier, we recommendMMLM’s program to consider free opportunities for students to partake in classes or programs(See Figs D.1. and D.2.) A balance between membership-exclusive programs and drop-in classes24is essential to appealing to the desires of students. Membership-exclusive programs may appealto students who desire a stronger sense of obligation to participate in PA. On the contrary, freeopportunities may appeal to students that prefer convenience and freedom in their engagement.UBC prides itself on having a diverse student body (UBC Student Services, 2017). Werecommend developing programs that are tailored towards people in certain cohorts such as theLGBTQ+ community or special classes for differently-abled individuals. This would increase theaccessibility and available PA options for these minority groups who require more considerationand planning to create successful PA interventions (Mudge et al., 2013). Thus, investment inprograms for targeted populations could help foster long-term community connections topromote longevity of MMLM first-year programs. These recommendations support thelong-term goal of improving student health as they move beyond their first year at UBC.ConclusionDespite the small sample size and other limitations of our study, we hope that ourfindings provide useful insights for MMLM to consider in their future endeavours in creatingphysical activity programming for first-year students at UBC. We also hope that our findings cancontribute to filling certain gaps in the literature regarding knowledge of barriers and motivatorsof physical activity.The recommendations that were developed serve to facilitate the motivators and mitigatethe barriers that participants identified. Our recommendations follow concepts identified by theacronym “RAD-I-CAL” and aim to improve: (1) program structure and scheduling, (2) healthpromotion and program integration, and (3) student accessibility and retainment. Future researchshould gather data about the experiences and reflections of students who have participated inMMLM’s first-year program. Additionally, further investigations regarding the differences in25barriers between specific cohorts can also aid in improving the success of this program. We hopethat the recommendations made will be conducive to improving the physical activity engagementand health of all future first-year students and the UBC community by extension.26ReferencesAMS Student Nest. (2021, February 09). Fees, Opt-In/Out & Subsidies. Retrieved April 13,2021, fromhttps://www.ams.ubc.ca/how-we-run/finances-funding/fees-opt-in-out-subsidies/Archer, T., & Garcia, D. (2014). Physical Exercise Influences Academic Performance andWell-being in Children and Adolescents. International Journal of School and CognitivePsychology, 1(1). https://doi.org/10.4172/2469-9837.1000e102Archibald, R. B., & Feldman, D. H. (2008). Explaining Increases in Higher Education Costs. TheJournal of Higher Education, 79(3), 268-295.https://doi.org/10.1080/00221546.2008.11772099Berry, E., Aucott, L., & Poobalan, A. (2018). Are young adults appreciating the health promotionmessages on diet and exercise? Journal of Public Health, 26(6), 687-696.https://doi.org/10.1007/s10389-018-0905-9Bray, S. R., & Born, H. A. (2004). Transition to University and Vigorous Physical Activity:Implications for Health and Psychological Well-Being. Journal of American CollegeHealth, 52(4), 181-188. https://doi.org/10.3200/jach.52.4.181-188Byrne, D., Griffitt, W., & Stefaniak, D. (1967). Attraction and similarity of personalitycharacteristics. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 5(1), 82-90.doi:10.1037/h002119827Cooper, N., Schuett, P. A., & Phillips, H. M. (2012). Examining Intrinsic Motivations in CampusIntramural Sports. Recreational Sports Journal, 36(1), 25-36.https://doi.org/10.1123/rsj.36.1.25Dillman, D. A., Smyth, J. D., & Christian, L. M. (2014). Internet, phone, mail, and mixed-modesurveys: The tailored design method (4th ed.). Retrieved April 13, 2021, fromhttps://www.wiley.comEcker, K. R., & Hampton, H. (2015). Patterns of and Barriers to Physical Activity among FirstYear College Students. Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise, 47(5S), 524.https://doi.org/10.1249/01.mss.0000477875.40428.e6Elffers, L., & Oort, F. J. (2012). Great expectations: Students’ educational attitudes upon thetransition to post-secondary vocational education. Social Psychology of Education, 16(1),1-22. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11218-012-9192-4Faber, J., & Fonseca, L. M. (2014). How sample size influences research outcomes. Dental PressJournal of Orthodontics, 19(4), 27-29.https://doi.org/10.1590/2176-9451.19.4.027-029.eboFrederick, G. M., Castillo-Hernández, I. M., Williams, E. R., Singh, A. A., & Evans, E. M.(2020). Differences in physical activity and perceived benefits and barriers to physicalactivity between LGBTQ   and non-LGBTQ   college students. Journal of AmericanCollege Health, 1-6. https://doi.org/10.1080/07448481.2020.184242628Gadzella, B. M. (1994). Student-Life Stress Inventory: Identification of and Reactions toStressors. Psychological Reports, 74(2), 395-402.https://doi.org/10.2466/pr0.1994.74.2.395Harwell, M. R. (n.d.). Research Design in Qualitative/Quantitative/Mixed Methods. RetrievedApril 13, 2021, from http://www.sagepub.com/upm-data/41165_10.pdfHaskell, W., Lee, I., Pate, R., & Powell, K. (2007). Physical Activity and Public Health.Circulation, 116(9), 1081-1093. https://doi.org/10.1161/circulationaha.107.185649Hemanth, L. K. (2020). Changing Trends of Social Interaction during the Pandemic and ItsEffects on Mental Health – A Student’s Perspective. Asian Journal of Education andSocial Studies, 7-14. doi:10.9734/ajess/2020/v9i330247Ho, A. D., & Yu, C. C. (2014). Descriptive Statistics for Modern Test Score Distributions.Educational and Psychological Measurement, 75(3), 365-388.https://doi.org/10.1177/0013164414548576Hughes, J. L., Camden, A. A., & Yangchen, T. (2016). Rethinking and Updating DemographicQuestions: Guidance to Improve Descriptions of Research Samples. Psi Chi Journal ofPsychological Research, 21(3), 138-151. https://doi.org/10.24839/b21.3.138Ironside, A., Ferguson, L. J., Katapally, T. R., & Foulds, H. J. (2020). Cultural connectedness asa determinant of physical activity among Indigenous adults in Saskatchewan. AppliedPhysiology, Nutrition, and Metabolism, 45(9), 937-947.https://doi.org/10.1139/apnm-2019-079329James, K. (2000). “You CanFeelThem Looking at You”: The Experiences of Adolescent Girls atSwimming Pools. Journal of Leisure Research, 32(2), 262-280.https://doi.org/10.1080/00222216.2000.11949917Joseph, R. P., Royse, K. E., Benitez, T. J., & Pekmezi, D. W. (2013). Physical activity and qualityof life among university students: Exploring self-efficacy, self-esteem, and affect aspotential mediators. Quality of Life Research, 23(2), 659-667.https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-013-0492-8Kanters, M. A., & Forester, S. (1997). The Motivations and Self-Esteem of Intramural SportsParticipants. Recreational Sports Journal, 21(3), 3-7.https://doi.org/10.1177/155886619702100302Keating, X. D., Guan, J., Piñero, J. C., & Bridges, D. M. (2005). A Meta-Analysis of CollegeStudents Physical Activity Behaviors. Journal of American College Health, 54(2),116-126. https://doi.org/10.3200/jach.54.2.116-126Kowalski, K. C., McHugh, T. F., Sabiston, C. M., & Ferguson, L. J. (2018). Research methods inkinesiology. Retrieved April 13, 2021, from https://online.vitalsource.comKwan, M. Y., Bray, S. R., & Ginis, K. A. (2009). Predicting Physical Activity of First-YearUniversity Students: An Application of the Theory of Planned Behavior. Journal ofAmerican College Health, 58(1), 45-55. https://doi.org/10.3200/jach.58.1.45-5530Life Saving Society. (2021). New Canadians. Retrieved April 13, 2021, fromhttp://www.lifesavingsociety.com/drowning-research/high-risk-groups/new-canadians.aspxMacdonald, D., Abbott, R., Knez, K., & Nelson, A. (2009). Taking exercise: Cultural diversityand physically active lifestyles. Sport, Education and Society, 14(1), 1-19.https://doi.org/10.1080/13573320802444945Martin, J. J. (2013). Benefits and barriers to physical activity for individuals with disabilities: Asocial-relational model of disability perspective. Disability and Rehabilitation, 35(24),2030-2037. https://doi.org/10.3109/09638288.2013.802377Mudge, S., Kayes, N. M., Stavric, V. A., Channon, A. S., Kersten, P., & McPherson, K. M.(2013). Living well with disability: Needs, values and competing factors. TheInternational Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity, 10(1), 100-100.https://doi.org/10.1186/1479-5868-10-100Pop, C. (2016). Self-Esteem and Body Image Perception in a Sample of University Students.Eurasian Journal of Educational Research, 16(64), 31-44.https://doi.org/10.14689/ejer.2016.64.2Provincial Government of British Columbia. (2021, April 09). COVID-19 province-widerestrictions. Retrieved April 13, 2021, fromhttps://www2.gov.bc.ca/gov/content/covid-19/info/restrictions31Raphael, D. (2008). Grasping at straws: A recent history of health promotion in Canada. CriticalPublic Health, 18(4), 483-495. https://doi.org/10.1080/09581590802443604Scully, J. A., Tosi, H., & Banning, K. (2000). Life Event Checklists: Revisiting the SocialReadjustment Rating Scale after 30 Years. Educational and Psychological Measurement,60(6), 864-876. https://doi.org/10.1177/00131640021970952Serrano, J., Pizarro, A., Abarca-Sos, A., & Villar, F. (2015). Levels of physical activity,motivation and barriers to participation in university students. Ports Medicine andPhysical Fitness, 56(10). https://doi.org/1239-48Sevil, J., Sánchez-Miguel, P. A., Pulido, J. J., Práxedes, A., & Sánchez-Oliva, D. (2018).Motivation and Physical Activity: Differences Between High School and UniversityStudents in Spain. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 125(5), 894-907.https://doi.org/10.1177/0031512518788743Siefken, K., Junge, A., & Laemmle, L. (2019). How does sport affect mental health? Aninvestigation into the relationship of leisure-time physical activity with depression andanxiety. Human Movement, 20(1), 62-74. https://doi.org/10.5114/hm.2019.78539Snelling S, Meserve A. (2016). Ontario Agency for Health Protection and Promotion (PublicHealth Ontario), Evaluating health promotion programs: introductory workbook.Toronto, ON: Queen's Printer for OntarioStewart-Brown, S., Evans, J., Patterson, J., Petersen, S., Doll, H., Balding, J., & Regis, D.(2000). The health of students in institutes of higher education: An important and32neglected public health problem? Journal of Public Health, 22(4), 492-499.https://doi.org/10.1093/pubmed/22.4.492Sun, H., Li, W., & Shen, B. (2017). Learning in Physical Education: A Self-DeterminationTheory Perspective. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 36(3), 277-291.https://doi.org/10.1123/jtpe.2017-0067Thomas, A. M., Beaudry, K. M., Gammage, K. L., Klentrou, P., & Josse, A. R. (2019). PhysicalActivity, Sport Participation, and Perceived Barriers to Engagement in First-YearCanadian University Students. Journal of Physical Activity and Health, 16(6), 437-446.https://doi.org/10.1123/jpah.2018-0198Tudor-Locke, C. E., & Myers, A. M. (2001). Challenges and Opportunities for MeasuringPhysical Activity in Sedentary Adults. Sports Medicine, 31(2), 91-100.https://doi.org/10.2165/00007256-200131020-00002University of British Columbia (UBC). (2014, August 28). Living the campus life. Retrievedfrom https://news.ubc.ca/2014/08/25/living-the-campus-life/#:~:text=UBC's Vancouvercampus has over,4,000– will live in residenceUniversity of British Columbia (UBC). (2021a). Move More, Learn More. Retrieved April 13,2021, from https://recreation.ubc.ca/get-moving/move-more-learn-more/University of British Columbia (UBC). (2021b). Weekly Update, March 12, 2021: Planning forthe Fall. Retrieved April 13, 2021, fromhttps://president.ubc.ca/blog/2021/03/12/fall-term/33University of British Columbia (UBC). (2021c). Memberships. Retrieved April 13, 2021, fromhttps://recreation.ubc.ca/aquatics/memberships/University of British Columbia (UBC) Recreation and Athletics. (2021d). Thinking of joiningIntramurals? Here's what it's really like. Retrieved April 13, 2021, fromhttps://recreation.ubc.ca/2021/04/07/inside-look-to-intramurals/University of British Columbia (UBC) Planning and Institutional Research Office (PAIR).(2021e). Vancouver Fact Sheets. Retrieved April 13, 2021, fromhttps://pair.cms.ok.ubc.ca/wp-content/uploads/sites/145/2021/04/UBCV-Fact-Sheet-Winter-2020.pdfUniversity of British Columbia (UBC) Student Services. (2017, August 16). Diversity onCampus. Retrieved from https://students.ubc.ca/campus-life/diversity-campusWorld Health Organization (WHO). (2018, June 04). NCDs | What is Moderate-intensity andVigorous-intensity Physical Activity? Retrieved April 13, 2021, fromhttps://www.who.int/ncds/prevention/physical-activity/intensity/en/World Health Organization (WHO). (2021a). Frequently Asked Questions. Retrieved April 13,2021, from https://www.who.int/about/who-we-are/frequently-asked-questionsWorld Health Organization (WHO). (2021b). Physical Activity. Retrieved April 13, 2021, fromhttps://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/physical-activity34Xu, M. L., & Leung, S. O. (2018). Effects of varying numbers of Likert scale points on factorstructure of the Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale. Asian Journal of Social Psychology, 21(3),119-128. https://doi.org/10.1111/ajsp.1221435Appendix ASurvey Questions1. Which of the following categories describes you?2. How old are you?3. Which of the following categories describes you?(race)4. What sex were you assigned at birth?5. What gender do you currently identify with?6. How would you describe your sexual identity? Select all that apply.7. What is your relationship status?8. What is your current employment status? Select all that apply.9. Compared to your average physical activity, how active were you in the last week?10. For the following questions, select the answer that best reflects your aerobic physicalactivity in the past week. (11-15)11. How many days did you engage in aerobic physical activity? (e.g. running, swimming,biking)12. On average, how hard were you exercising?13. On average, how long was each individual session of aerobic exercise?14. Give an approximation of your total time (hours) performing aerobic exercise in the last 7days.15. What type of exercise did you perform? Select all that apply.16. For the following questions, select the answer that best reflects your engagement inresistance exercise in the past week. (17-20)17. How many days did you engage in resistance exercise?18. On average, how long was each individual session of resistance exercise?19. Give an approximation of your total time (hours) performing resistance exercise in thelast 7 days?20. What type of exercise did you perform? Select all that apply.21. For the following questions, select the answer that best reflects your engagement inflexibility-related exercise in the past week (22-24)22. On average, how long was each individual session of flexibility-related exercise?23. Give an approximation of your total time (hours) performing flexibility-related exercisein the last 7 days?24. What type of exercise did you perform? Select all that apply.25. On a scale from 1-5, how comfortable are you with exercising in the followingconditions:a. By yourself; in a private spaceb. With strangers; in a formal physical activity programc. With friends; in a recreational settingd. With friends; in a formal physical activity setting36e. In an outdoor public spacef. In an indoor public space26. On a scale of 1-5, how much do you enjoy physical activity?27. On a scale from 1-5, how likely are you to participate in the following physical activityvenues/programs:a. Intramuralsb. Esports leaguec. UBC aquaticsd. UBC workout spacese. Other UBC exercise venues28. Which of the following barriers affect your participation in physical activitya. Lack of timeb. Cost of exercisingc. Lack of friendsd. Self-consciousnesse. Perceived lack of physical competencyf. Lack of motivationg. Other29. On a scale from 1-5, how likely do you think these barriers will affect your ability toparticipate in physical activity in post-secondary?a. Lack of timeb. Cost of exercisingc. Lack of friendsd. Self-consciousnesse. Lack of physical competencef. Lack of motivation30. I exercise because I enjoy…a. Being activeb. Doing something I am good atc. Feeling alert during the dayd. Feeling less guilty about indulging in cravings31. I exercise to…a. Alleviate painb. Keep healthy, avoid illnessc. Receive life-long benefitsd. Benefit my mental health & help de-stress32. I exercise because…a. It provides me with an opportunity for social interaction or a way to meet newpeopleb. I want to be challenged37c. I want to get out of the housed. I have someone to exercise with33. I exercise because it helps me…a. Boost energy levelsb. Feel more relatednessc. Feel more incontrol of my lifed. Increase self-esteem and positive body imagee. Be happyf. Maintain my weightg. Lose weight34. Do you have any other comments or feedback pertaining to your involvement in physicalactivity as a UBC student?38Table A. 1. Overview of participants’ consent.Frequencies for ConsentConsent Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative PercentI consent. 44 100.000 100.000 100.000Missing 0 0.000Total 44 100.00039Consent Form4041Social Media Recruitment42Appendix BTable B. 1. Overview of participants’ demographics, including age and category of student.Frequencies for AgeWhich of the following categoriesbest describes you?Age Frequency Percent ValidPercentCumulativePercentFirst year student 16 years old 0 0.000 0.000 0.00017 years old 0 0.000 0.000 0.00018 years old 20 71.429 71.429 71.42919 years old 6 21.429 21.429 92.85720 years old 1 3.571 3.571 96.429Older than20 years old1 3.571 3.571 100.000Missing 0 0.000Total 28 100.000Incoming first year student(currently in gap-year)16 years old 0 0.000 0.000 0.00017 years old 0 0.000 0.000 0.00018 years old 0 0.000 0.000 0.00019 years old 0 0.000 0.000 0.00020 years old 1 100.000 100.000 100.000Older than20 years old0 0.000 0.000 100.000Missing 0 0.000Total 1 100.000Incoming first year student (fromanother institution or faculty)16 years old 0 0.000 0.000 0.00017 years old 1 33.333 33.333 33.33318 years old 1 33.333 33.333 66.66719 years old 0 0.000 0.000 66.66720 years old 1 33.333 33.333 100.000Older than20 years old0 0.000 0.000 100.000Missing 0 0.00043Total 3 100.000Incoming first year student (inhighschool)16 years old 1 8.333 8.333 8.33317 years old 9 75.000 75.000 83.33318 years old 2 16.667 16.667 100.00019 years old 0 0.000 0.000 100.00020 years old 0 0.000 0.000 100.000Older than20 years old0 0.000 0.000 100.000Missing 0 0.000Total 12 100.00044Table B. 2. Overview of participants’ demographics, including sex assigned at birth.Descriptive StatisticsSex at BirthFemale Male Prefer not to answerValid 24 19 1Missing 0 0 0Note. Not all values are available for Nominal Textvariables45Table B. 3. Overview of participants’ demographics, including gender identity and sexualidentity.Frequencies for Sexual IdentityGenderIdentitySexual Identity Frequency Percent ValidPercentCumulativePercentFemale Asexual 0 0.000 0.000 0.000Bisexual 2 8.333 8.333 8.333Bisexual,Heterosexual/straight,Pansexual 1 4.167 4.167 12.500Bisexual,Questioning 1 4.167 4.167 16.667Heterosexual/straight 20 83.333 83.333 100.000Prefer to self describe: Panromantic,sexually attracted to men only0 0.000 0.000 100.000Missing 0 0.000Total 24 100.000Male Asexual 2 10.526 10.526 10.526Bisexual 2 10.526 10.526 21.053Bisexual,Heterosexual/straight,Pansexual 0 0.000 0.000 21.053Bisexual,Questioning 0 0.000 0.000 21.053Heterosexual/straight 14 73.684 73.684 94.737Prefer to self describe: Panromantic,sexually attracted to men only1 5.263 5.263 100.000Missing 0 0.000Total 19 100.000Prefernot toanswerAsexual 1 100.000 100.000 100.000Bisexual 0 0.000 0.000 100.000Bisexual,Heterosexual/straight,Pansexual 0 0.000 0.000 100.000Bisexual,Questioning 0 0.000 0.000 100.000Heterosexual/straight 0 0.000 0.000 100.000Prefer to self describe: Panromantic,sexually attracted to men only0 0.000 0.000 100.000Missing 0 0.000Total 1 100.00046Table B. 4. Overview of participants’ demographics, including employment status.Frequencies for Employment StatusEmployment Status Frequency Percent ValidPercentCumulativePercentEmployed part-time 7 15.909 15.909 15.909Employed part-time,Student 7 15.909 15.909 31.818Not listed, please specify- Seasonal 1 2.273 2.273 34.091Parental leave or otherleave,Unemployed1 2.273 2.273 36.364Student 20 45.455 45.455 81.818Student,Unemployed 7 15.909 15.909 97.727Unemployed 1 2.273 2.273 100.000Missing 0 0.000Total 44 100.00047Table B. 5. Overview for participant’s demographics, including race.Frequencies for RaceRace Frequency Percent ValidPercentCumulativePercentBiracial/Multiracial,EastAsian,White/Caucasian4 9.091 9.091 9.091East Asian 22 50.000 50.000 59.091East Asian,Middle Eastern/Central Asian 1 2.273 2.273 61.364East Asian,Southeast Asian 1 2.273 2.273 63.636Hispanic 1 2.273 2.273 65.909Middle Eastern/Central Asian 1 2.273 2.273 68.182Middle Eastern/Central Asian,SouthAsian,Southeast Asian1 2.273 2.273 70.455South Asian 5 11.364 11.364 81.818South Asian,Southeast Asian 1 2.273 2.273 84.091Southeast Asian 6 13.636 13.636 97.727White/Caucasian 1 2.273 2.273 100.000Missing 0 0.000Total 44 100.00048Table B. 6. Overview for participant’s demographics, including relationship statusFrequencies for Relationship StatusRelationship Status Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative PercentDating casually 2 4.545 4.545 4.545In a monogamousrelationship6 13.636 13.636 18.182Single 36 81.818 81.818 100.000Missing 0 0.000Total 44 100.00049Appendix CTable C.1. Overview of participants’ baseline physical activity levels, including aerobic activity.Frequencies for Average Length ofSessionAverage Length of Session IntensityResistanceExercise(days)AverageLength ofSession Frequency Percent Intensity Frequency Percent0 0 - 15 4 100 -15 - 30 0 0 Mild 2 5030 - 45 0 0 Moderate 1 2545 - 60 0 0 Vigorous 0 060+ 0 0I don'tknow/I don'tremember 1 25Missing 0 0 Missing 0 0Total 4 100 Total 4 1001 0 - 15 0 0 -15 - 30 1 33.333 Mild 0 030 - 45 2 66.667 Moderate 2 66.66745 - 60 0 0 Vigorous 1 33.33360+ 0 0I don'tknow/I don'tremember 0 0Missing 0 0 Missing 0 0Total 3 100 Total 3 1002 0 - 15 0 0 -5015 - 30 1 14.286 Mild 2 28.57130 - 45 2 28.571 Moderate 1 14.28645 - 60 3 42.857 Vigorous 4 57.14360+ 1 14.286I don'tknow/I don'tremember 0 0Missing 0 0 Missing 0 0Total 7 100 Total 7 1003 0 - 15 1 25 -15 - 30 1 25 Mild 1 2530 - 45 2 50 Moderate 3 7545 - 60 0 0 Vigorous 0 060+ 0 0I don'tknow/I don'tremember 0 0Missing 0 0 Missing 0 0Total 4 100 Total 4 1004 0 - 15 0 0 -15 - 30 2 28.571 Mild 0 030 - 45 1 14.286 Moderate 2 28.57145 - 60 2 28.571 Vigorous 5 71.42960+ 2 28.571I don'tknow/I don'tremember 0 0Missing 0 0 Missing 0 0Total 7 100 Total 7 100515 0 - 15 0 0 -15 - 30 0 0 Mild 0 030 - 45 0 0 Moderate 1 33.33345 - 60 2 66.667 Vigorous 0 060+ 1 33.333I don'tknow/I don'tremember 2 66.667Missing 0 0 Missing 0 0Total 3 100 Total 3 1007 0 - 15 1 50 -15 - 30 0 0 Mild 0 030 - 45 0 0 Moderate 0 045 - 60 0 0 Vigorous 2 10060+ 1 50I don'tknow/I don'tremember 0 0Missing 0 0 Missing 0 0Total 2 100 Total 2 10052Table C.2. Overview of participants’ baseline physical activity levels, total hours of aerobicactivity per week.Frequencies for Total Time (h)Total Time (h) Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent0 3 6.977 7.692 7.6921 8 18.605 20.513 28.2052 6 13.953 15.385 43.5903 7 16.279 17.949 61.5384 2 4.651 5.128 66.6675 5 11.628 12.821 79.4876 6 13.953 15.385 94.8728 1 2.326 2.564 97.43612 1 2.326 2.564 100.000Missing 4 9.302Total 43 100.00053Figure C.1. Distribution participants’ engagement in different aerobic exercises.54Table C.3. Overview of participants’ baseline physical activity levels, including resistanceactivity.Frequencies for Average Length of SessionResistance Exercise(days)Average Length ofSessionFrequency Percent ValidPercentCumulativePercent0 0 - 15 mins 4 100.000 100.000 100.00015 - 30 mins 0 0.000 0.000 100.00030 - 45 mins 0 0.000 0.000 100.00045 - 60 mins 0 0.000 0.000 100.00060+ mins 0 0.000 0.000 100.000Missing 0 0.000Total 4 100.0001 0 - 15 mins 0 0.000 0.000 0.00015 - 30 mins 1 33.333 33.333 33.33330 - 45 mins 2 66.667 66.667 100.00045 - 60 mins 0 0.000 0.000 100.00060+ mins 0 0.000 0.000 100.000Missing 0 0.000Total 3 100.0002 0 - 15 mins 0 0.000 0.000 0.00015 - 30 mins 1 14.286 14.286 14.28630 - 45 mins 2 28.571 28.571 42.85745 - 60 mins 3 42.857 42.857 85.71460+ mins 1 14.286 14.286 100.000Missing 0 0.000Total 7 100.0003 0 - 15 mins 1 25.000 25.000 25.00015 - 30 mins 1 25.000 25.000 50.00030 - 45 mins 2 50.000 50.000 100.00045 - 60 mins 0 0.000 0.000 100.00060+ mins 0 0.000 0.000 100.000Missing 0 0.000Total 4 100.0004 0 - 15 mins 0 0.000 0.000 0.00015 - 30 mins 2 28.571 28.571 28.57130 - 45 mins 1 14.286 14.286 42.8575545 - 60 mins 2 28.571 28.571 71.42960+ mins 2 28.571 28.571 100.000Missing 0 0.000Total 7 100.0005 0 - 15 mins 0 0.000 0.000 0.00015 - 30 mins 0 0.000 0.000 0.00030 - 45 mins 0 0.000 0.000 0.00045 - 60 mins 2 66.667 66.667 66.66760+ mins 1 33.333 33.333 100.000Missing 0 0.000Total 3 100.0007 0 - 15 mins 1 50.000 50.000 50.00015 - 30 mins 0 0.000 0.000 50.00030 - 45 mins 0 0.000 0.000 50.00045 - 60 mins 0 0.000 0.000 50.00060+ mins 1 50.000 50.000 100.000Missing 0 0.000Total 2 100.00056Table C.4. Overview of participants’ baseline physical activity levels, total hours of resistanceactivity per week.Frequencies for Total Time (h)Total Time (h) Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent0 5 11.628 16.129 16.1291 4 9.302 12.903 29.0322 7 16.279 22.581 51.6133 3 6.977 9.677 61.2904 2 4.651 6.452 67.7425 2 4.651 6.452 74.1946 1 2.326 3.226 77.4197 4 9.302 12.903 90.3238 1 2.326 3.226 93.5489 2 4.651 6.452 100.000Missing 12 27.907Total 43 100.00057Figure C.2. Frequency distribution of participants’ engagement in different resistance exercises.58Table C. 5. Overview of participants’ baseline physical activity levels, includingflexibility-related activity.Frequencies for Average Length of SessionFlexibility(days)Average Length ofSession_13Frequency Percent ValidPercentCumulativePercent0 0 - 15 mins 5 100.000 100.000 100.00015 - 30 mins 0 0.000 0.000 100.00030 - 45 mins 0 0.000 0.000 100.000Missing 0 0.000Total 5 100.0001 0 - 15 mins 4 50.000 50.000 50.00015 - 30 mins 2 25.000 25.000 75.00030 - 45 mins 2 25.000 25.000 100.000Missing 0 0.000Total 8 100.0002 0 - 15 mins 4 80.000 80.000 80.00015 - 30 mins 1 20.000 20.000 100.00030 - 45 mins 0 0.000 0.000 100.000Missing 0 0.000Total 5 100.0003 0 - 15 mins 2 100.000 100.000 100.00015 - 30 mins 0 0.000 0.000 100.00030 - 45 mins 0 0.000 0.000 100.000Missing 0 0.000Total 2 100.0004 0 - 15 mins 1 100.000 100.000 100.00015 - 30 mins 0 0.000 0.000 100.00030 - 45 mins 0 0.000 0.000 100.000Missing 0 0.000Total 1 100.0005 0 - 15 mins 3 100.000 100.000 100.00015 - 30 mins 0 0.000 0.000 100.00030 - 45 mins 0 0.000 0.000 100.000Missing 0 0.000Total 3 100.0006 0 - 15 mins 1 100.000 100.000 100.0005915 - 30 mins 0 0.000 0.000 100.00030 - 45 mins 0 0.000 0.000 100.000Missing 0 0.000Total 1 100.0007 0 - 15 mins 0 0.000 0.000 0.00015 - 30 mins 1 50.000 50.000 50.00030 - 45 mins 1 50.000 50.000 100.000Missing 0 0.000Total 2 100.00060Table C.6. Overview of participants’ baseline physical activity levels, including total hours offlexibility-related activity per week.Frequencies for Total Time (h)_14Total Time (h)_14 Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent0 5 11.628 20.000 20.0001 15 34.884 60.000 80.0002 2 4.651 8.000 88.0003 1 2.326 4.000 92.0004 1 2.326 4.000 96.0005 1 2.326 4.000 100.000Missing 18 41.860Total 43 100.00061Figure C.3. Frequency distribution of participants’ engagement in different flexibility-relatedexercises.62Table C.7. Overview of participants’ baseline physical activity levels, including a summary ofdescriptive statistics of hours of activity per week.Descriptive StatisticsTotal Time (h) aer Total Time (h) res Total Time (h) flexValid 39 31 25Missing 4 12 18Mean 3.023 2.441 0.721Std. Deviation 2.527 2.848 1.200Minimum 0.000 0.000 0.000Maximum 12.000 9.000 5.00063Appendix DFigure D.1. Perceived barriers to physical activity engagement.64Figure D.2. Frequency distribution for respondent’s perceived barriers to physical activity.Participants responded through Likert-type scales.65Figure D.3. Frequency distribution for participants’ perception of physical activity.66Figure D.4. Frequency distribution for likeliness of participation at UBC recreational venues.67Figure D.5. Frequency distribution of reasons for engagement in physical activity for implicitreasons. Participants responded through Likert-type scales.68Figure D.6. Frequency distribution of reasons for engagement in physical activity for healthbenefits. Participants responded through Likert-type scales.69Figure D.7. Frequency distribution of reasons for engagement in physical activity. Participantsresponded through Likert-type scales.70Figure D.8. Frequency distribution of reasons for engagement in physical activity. Participantsresponded through Likert-type scales.71Figure D.9. Frequency distribution of participants’ level of comfort exercising in differentvenues. Participants responded through Likert-type scales.72Figure D.10. Frequency distribution of participants that meet/do not meet physical activityguidelines73Figure D.11. Distribution of barriers of physical activity for participants that do not meetphysical activity guidelines74Figure D.12. Distribution of barriers of physical activity for participants that meet physicalactivity guidelines75Figure D.13. Distribution of perceived popularity of UBC venues for participants that do notmeet physical activity guidelines76Figure D.14. Distribution of perceived popularity of UBC venues for participants that meetphysical activity guidelines

Cite

Citation Scheme:

        

Citations by CSL (citeproc-js)

Usage Statistics

Share

Embed

Customize your widget with the following options, then copy and paste the code below into the HTML of your page to embed this item in your website.
                        
                            <div id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidgetDisplay">
                            <script id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidget"
                            src="{[{embed.src}]}"
                            data-item="{[{embed.item}]}"
                            data-collection="{[{embed.collection}]}"
                            data-metadata="{[{embed.showMetadata}]}"
                            data-width="{[{embed.width}]}"
                            data-media="{[{embed.selectedMedia}]}"
                            async >
                            </script>
                            </div>
                        
                    
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:
https://iiif.library.ubc.ca/presentation/dsp.18861.1-0398390/manifest

Comment

Related Items