Fizyoterapi ve rehabilitasyon öğrencilerinde fiziksel aktivite ve akademik başarı düzeylerinin değerlendirmesi

Abstract

Amaç: Fizyoterapi ve rehabilitasyon bölümünde öğretim gören tüm üniversite öğrencilerinin fiziksel aktivite düzeylerini ve akademik başarı düzeylerini değerlendirmek ve birbirleriyle olan ilişkilerini araştırmaktı.

Yöntem: Öğrencilerin fiziksel aktivite düzeyleri Uluslararası Fiziksel Aktivite Anketi (UFAA) ile değerlendirilirken, başarı düzeyleri genel akademik ortalamalarından (GAO) elde edildi.

Bulgular: Çalışmaya 436 öğrenci dahil edildi. İkinci, üçüncü ve dördüncü sınıfların GAO’ları karşılaştırıldığında sınıflar arasında fark bulundu (p<0,05). UFAA sonuçlarına göre fiziksel olarak aktif olmayan öğrenciler birinci sınıfların %24,4’ünü, ikinci sınıfların % 17,3’ünü, üçüncü sınıfların % 20,6’sını ve dördüncü sınıfların % 21,9’unu oluşturdu. Analizin sonuçlarına göre fiziksel aktivite seviyeleri ile başarı seviyelerinde anlamlı bir ilişki bulunmadı (p>0,05).

Tartışma: Önceki eğitim hayatına göre daha zor olan üniversite derslerinin öğrencilerin fiziksel aktivite seviyelerinin değişmesine yol açabileceği düşünülmektedir. Elde edilen sonuçlar fizyoterapi ve rehabilitasyon bölümündeki eğitimcilere ve bu alanda yapılan çalışmalara yol gösterici olacaktır.

Keywords

• Öğrenciler; fizyoterapi,Fiziksel aktivite,Akademik başarı

Assessment of physical activity and academic success levels in physiotherapy and rehabilitation students

Abstract

Purpose: To evaluate the level of physical activity and academic success of all students who continued to Physiotherapy and Rehabilitation department and investigate the relationships between them.

Methods: While the level of physical activity of the students was evaluated with the International Physical Activity Questionnaire (IPAQ), the level of their academic success was obtained by their grade point average (GPA).

Results: Four hundred and thirty-five students were included in the study. Significant difference was found when the GPAs of the second, third and forth classes were compared (p<0.05). Physically inactive students formed 24.4% of the first class students, 17.3% of second year students, 20.6% of third year students, and 21.9% of fourth year students. No significant relationship was found between level of physical activity and success level as the results of analysis (p>0.05).

Conclusion: It is considered that university lectures, which are more difficult than the previous education life, could lead to change in the physical activity level of the students. The results will guide the educators of physiotherapy and rehabilitation department and future studies conducted in this area.

Keywords

• Students; physiotherapy,Physical activity,Academic success

References

1. 1. Ellis H. Elizabeth Kenny: an early and controversial physiotherapist. J Perioper Pract. 2009;19:264-266.
2. 2. Lekkas P, Larsen T, Kumar S, et al. No model of clinical education for physiotherapy students is superior to another: a systematic review. Aust J Physiother. 2007;53:19-28.
3. 3. Fişek N. Halk Sağlığına Giriş. Ankara: H.Ü. Dünya Sağlık Örgütü Hizmet Araştırma ve Araştırıcı Yetiştirme Merkezi Yayını; 1985.
4. 4. Caspersen CJ, Powell KE, Christenson GM. Physical activity, exercise, and physical fitness: definitions and distinctions for healthrelated research. Public Health Rep. 1985;100:126-131.
5. 5. Haskell WL, Lee IM, Pate RR, et al. Physical activity and public health: Updated recommendation for adults from the American College of Sports Medicine and the American Heart Association. Med Sci Sports Exer. 2007;39:1423-1434.
6. 6. Dąbrowska-Galas M, Plinta R, Dąbrowska J, et al. Physical activity in students of the Medical University of Silesia in Poland. Phys Ther. 2013;93:384-392.
7. 7. Heath GW, Parra DC, Sarmiento OL, et al. Evidence-based intervention in physical activity: lessons from around the world. Lancet. 2012;380(9838):272-281.
8. 8. Saglam M, Arikan H, Savci S, et al. International Physical Activity Questionnaire: reliability and validity of the Turkish Version. Percept Mot Skills. 2010;111:278-284.

9. 9. Craig CL, Mashall AL, Sjöström M, et al. International physical activity questionnaire:12- country reliability and validity. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2003;35:1381-1395.
10. 10. Savcı S, Öztürk M, Arıkan H, et al. Üniversite öğrencilerinin fiziksel aktivite düzeyleri. Türk Kardiyol Dern. Arş. 2006;34:166-172.
11. 11. El-Gilany AH, Badawi K, El-Khawaga G, et al. Physical activity profile of students in Mansoura University, Egypt. East Mediter Health J. 2011;17:694-702.
12. 12. Singh A, Uijtdewilligen L, Twisk JWR, et al. Physical Activity and Performance at School. Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med. 2012;166:49-55.
13. 13. Fox CK, Barr-Anderson D, Neumark-Sztainer D, et al. Physical. activity and sports team participation: associations with academic outcomes in middle school and high school students. J Sch Health. 2010;80:31-37.
14. 14. Can G, Ozdilli K, Erol O, et al. Comparison of the health-promoting lifestyles of nursing and non-nursing students in Istanbul, Turkey. Nurs Health Sci. 2008;10:273-280.
15. 15. Bothmer M, Fridlund B. Gender differences in health habits and in motivation for a healthy lifestyle among Swedish university students. Nurs Health Sci. 2005;7:107-118.
16. 16. Mull H, Tietjen-Smith T. Physical activity and academic success: Links on a University Campus. FOCUS on Colleges, Universities & Schools, 2014;8:1-8.
17. 17. Casebolt K, Chiang LM, Melton B, et al. College/university instructional physical activity programs and academic success in higher education. Int J Kinesiol High Educ. 2017;1:100-106.