Fizyoterapi ve Rehabilitasyon Öğrencilerinde Fiziksel Aktivite Düzeyi, Fiziksel Aktivite Engelleri ve Fiziksel Aktiviteye Yönelik Bilişsel-Davranışsal Eğilimler Arasındaki İlişkinin İncelenmesi

Öz

Amaç: Bu çalışma, fizyoterapi ve rehabilitasyon öğrencilerinde fiziksel aktivite düzeyleri, algılanan fiziksel aktivite engelleri ve fiziksel aktiviteye yönelik bilişsel-davranışsal eğilimler arasındaki ilişkiyi araştırmayı amaçlamıştır. Gereç ve Yöntem: Kesitsel olarak planlanan bu çalışmaya fizyoterapi ve rehabilitasyon bölümünden toplam 157 lisans öğrencisi katılmıştır. Fiziksel aktivite düzeyleri Fiziksel Aktivite Ölçeği–2 ile değerlendirilmiştir. Algılanan engellerin değerlendirilmesinde Fiziksel Aktivite Engelleri Ölçeği (FAEÖ), bilişsel-davranışsal eğilimlerin değerlendirilmesinde ise Bilişsel Davranışçı Fiziksel Aktivite Ölçeği (BDFAÖ) kullanılmıştır. Bulgular: Katılımcıların yaş ortalaması 21,57±4,05 yıldır. Ortalama fiziksel aktivite düzeyi 3206,45±867,92 MET-dak/hafta olarak bulunmuştur. Fiziksel aktivite düzeyi ile FAEÖ kişisel engeller (r=–0,250, p=0,002), fiziksel çevre (r=–0,168, p=0,036) ve toplam skorları (r=–0,242, p=0,002) arasında zayıf negatif korelasyon saptanmıştır. Fiziksel aktivite düzeyi ile BDFAÖ sonuç beklentileri (r=0,171, p=0,033), öz-düzenleme (r=0,210, p=0,008) ve toplam skorları (r=0,257, p=0,001) arasında zayıf pozitif korelasyon gözlenmiştir. Ayrıca, toplam FAEÖ ve BDFAÖ skorları arasında orta düzeyde negatif korelasyon tespit edilmiştir (r=–0,533, p<0,001). Sonuç: Bu çalışma, fizyoterapi öğrencilerinde fiziksel aktivite düzeyi, algılanan engeller ve bilişsel-davranışsal eğilimler arasında anlamlı bir ilişki olduğunu ortaya koymaktadır. Algılanan engeller ile davranışsal örüntüler arasındaki orta düzeydeki ters ilişki, daha fazla araştırılması gereken psikolojik bir dinamiğe işaret etmektedir. Bu sonuçlar, bu popülasyonda fiziksel aktiviteyi teşvik etmeye yönelik stratejiler geliştirilirken çevresel ve bilişsel-davranışsal bileşenlerin birlikte ele alınmasının önemini vurgulamaktadır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• davranış
• Fiziksel aktivite
• üniversite öğrencisi

Investigation of the Relationship between Physical Activity Level, Physical Activity Barriers, and Cognitive-Behavioral Tendencies towards Physical Activity in Physiotherapy Students

Öz

Objective: This study aimed to investigate the relationship between physical activity levels, perceived physical activity barriers, and cognitive-behavioral tendencies toward physical activity among physiotherapy and rehabilitation students. Material and Methods: A total of 157 undergraduate students from the department of physiotherapy and rehabilitation participated in this cross-sectional study. Physical activity levels were assessed using the Physical Activity Scale–2. The Physical Activity Barriers Questionnaire (PABQ) and the Cognitive Behavioral Physical Activity Questionnaire (CBPAQ) were used to evaluate perceived barriers and cognitive-behavioral tendencies, respectively. Results: The participants had a mean age of 21.57±4.05 years. The mean physical activity level was 3206.45±867.92 MET-min/week. A weak negative correlation was found between physical activity levels and PABQ personal barriers (r=–0.250, p=0.002), physical environment (r=–0.168, p=0.036), and total scores (r=–0.242, p=0.002). A weak positive correlation was observed between physical activity levels and CBPAQ outcome expectations (r=0.171, p=0.033), self-regulation (r=0.210, p=0.008), and total scores (r=0.257, p=0.001). A moderate negative correlation was also found between total PABQ and CBPAQ scores (r=–0.533, p<0.001). Conclusion: This study reveals a meaningful association between physical activity levels, perceived barriers, and cognitive-behavioral tendencies among physiotherapy students. The moderate inverse relationship between perceived barriers and behavioral patterns suggests a psychological dynamic that deserves further exploration. These results emphasize the importance of considering both environmental and cognitive-behavioral components when designing strategies to promote physical activity in this population.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• behavior
• Physical activity
• university student

Kaynakça

1. Bull FC, Al-Ansari SS, Biddle S, Borodulin K, Buman MP, Cardon G, etal. World Health Organization 2020 guidelines on physical activityand sedentary behaviour. Br J Sports Med. 2020 Dec;54(24):1451–62.
2. Gómez-López M, Gallegos AG, Extremera AB. Perceived barriers byuniversity students in the practice of physical activities. J Sports SciMed. 2010;9(3):374–81.
3. Pratt M, Norris J, Lobelo F, Roux L, Wang G. The cost of physicalinactivity: moving into the 21st century. Br J Sports Med. 2014Feb;48(3):171–3.
4. Bauman AE, Reis RS, Sallis JF, Wells JC, Loos RJ, Martin BW.Correlates of physical activity: why are some people physically activeand others not? The Lancet. 2012 Jul;380(9838):258–71.
5. Rebar AL, Stanton R, Geard D, Short C, Duncan MJ, Vandelanotte C.A meta-meta-analysis of the effect of physical activity on depressionand anxiety in non-clinical adult populations. Health Psychol Rev.2015 Aug 7;9(3):366–78.
6. Ferreira Silva RM, Mendonça CR, Azevedo VD, Raoof Memon A, NollPRES, Noll M. Barriers to high school and university students’physical activity: A systematic review. Huertas-Delgado FJ, editor.PLOS ONE. 2022 Apr 4;17(4):e0265913.
7. Bray SR, Born HA. Transition to university and vigorous physicalactivity: implications for health and psychological well-being. J AmColl Health. 2004 Jan 1;52(4):181–8.
8. Cup EH, Pieterse AJ, Ten Broek-Pastoor JM, Munneke M, VanEngelen BG, Hendricks HT, et al. Exercise therapy and other typesof physical therapy for patients with neuromuscular diseases: asystematic review. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2007 Nov;88(11):1452–64.

9. Corey JJ, Shirazipour CH, Fricke M, Evans B. Physiotherapists’ role inphysical activity promotion: Qualitative reflections of patients andproviders. Physiother Theory Pract. 2023 Apr 3;39(4):814–26.
10. Dean E, Greig A, Murphy S, Roots R, Nembhard N, Rankin A, et al.Raising the priority of lifestyle-related noncommunicable diseasesin physical therapy curricula. Phys Ther. 2016 Jul 1;96(7):940–8.
11. Kgokong D, Parker R. Physical activity in physiotherapy students:Levels of physical activity and perceived benefits and barriers toexercise. South Afr J Physiother [Internet]. 2020 Apr 29 [cited 2025Jun 9];76(1). Available from:http://www.sajp.co.za/index.php/SAJP/article/view/1399
12. Ranasinghe C, Sigera C, Ranasinghe P, Jayawardena R, RanasingheACR, Hills AP, et al. Physical inactivity among physiotherapyundergraduates: exploring the knowledge-practice gap. BMC SportsSci Med Rehabil. 2016 Dec;8(1):39.
13. Blake H, Stanulewicz N, Mcgill F. Predictors of physical activity andbarriers to exercise in nursing and medical students. J Adv Nurs.2017 Apr;73(4):917–29.
14. Pedersen ESL, Mortensen LH, Brage S, Bjerregaard AL, Aadahl M.Criterion validity of the Physical Activity Scale (PAS2) in Danishadults. Scand J Public Health. 2018 Nov;46(7):726–34.
15. Gür F. Fiziksel Aktivite Ölçeği-2’nin Türkçe geçerlilik ve güvenilirlikçalışması. Spor ve Performans Araştırmaları Derg. 2021 Dec20;12(3):252–63.
16. Ibrahim S, Karim NA, Oon NL, Ngah WZW. Perceived physicalactivity barriers related to body weight status and sociodemographic factors among Malaysian men in Klang Valley. BMC Public Health. 2013 Dec;13(1):275.
17. Yurtçı̇Çek S. Fiziksel Aktivite Engelleri Ölçeği’nin Türkçe formunungeçerlik ve güvenirlik çalışması. J Acad Soc Sci. 2018 Jan 1;71(71):396–404.
18. Schembre SM, Durand CP, Blissmer BJ, Greene GW. Development and validation of the Cognitive Behavioral Physical Activity Questionnaire. Am J Health Promot. 2015 Sep;30(1):58–65.
19. Eskiler E, Küçükibiş F, Gülle M, Soyer F. Bilişsel Davranışçı Fiziksel Aktivite Ölçeği: Geçerlik ve güvenirlik çalışması. J Hum Sci. 2016 May 23;13(2):2577.
20. Schober P, Boer C, Schwarte LA. Correlation coefficients: appropriate use and interpretation. Anesth Analg. 2018 May;126(5):1763–8.
21. Alaca N, Yıldız A, Zeytin Y, Karaca M, Dilek B. Evaluation of physical activity, sleep quality and time management skills of physiotherapy and rehabilitation students during the Covid-19 pandemic process. Gevher Nesibe J IESDR. 2022 Jan 25;7(16):49–59.
22. Arman N, Namli A, Çı̇Vı̇ Karaaslan T. Exercise behavior of physiotherapy and rehabilitation students: a cross-sectional study. Gobeklitepe Saglik Bilim Derg. 2022 Mar 15;5(7):116–25.
23. Sousa TFD, Fonseca SA, Barbosa AR. Barreiras para a prática de atividade física no lazer em estudantes universitários. Rev Bras Cineantropometria E Desempenho Hum. 2013 Mar 1;15(2):164–73.
24. Sevil J, Práxedes A, Abarca-Sos A, Del Villar F, García-González L. Levels of physical activity, motivation and barriers to participation in university students. J Sports Med Phys Fitness. 2016 Oct;56(10):1239–48.
25. Tokmak NN, Aktar B, Balci B. Effects of gender, body mass index, grade level, and physical activity level on the attitudes and behaviors of physiotherapy students toward physical activity. Physiother Theory Pract. 2025 May 26;1–9.