Purpose: This study is based on core concepts of social cognitive theory – personal psychosocial factors (e.g., self-efficacy and self-regulation) and environmental influences (e.g., social support and physical environment). The purpose of this study is to determine the current state of physical activity and sedentary behavior and their influencing factors among university students in Taiwan.
Methods: This study conducted a cross-sectional survey of 531 students from 3 universities in central Taiwan. A total of 513 valid questionnaires (96.6%) were returned. For research tools, we utilized the International Physical Activity Questionnaires (IPAQ)-Taiwan short form (self-administered), sedentary behavior questionnaire (SBQ), self-efficacy for physical activity, self-efficacy for reducing sedentary behaviors, self-regulation for sitting less and moving more, social support for physical activity, physical activity environments on campus, and personal characteristics. The inferential statistics were derived through independent sample t-test, one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA), Pearson product-moment correlation and multiple regressions.
Results: Approximately 36% of university students did not achieve the recommended amount of physical activity, and over 60% engaged in too much sedentary behaviors. Male students performed more physical activity (2946.7 MET-minutes/week) than female counterparts (2081.9 MET-minutes/week). Males and females preferred different types of physical activity. In terms of sedentary behaviors, both male and female students’ average sitting time on weekdays and weekend days exceeded 8 hours a day. Female students’ average weekday and weekend day sitting time (9.61 and 10.62 hours, respectively) were higher than male counterparts (9.14 and 9.98 hours, respectively). As for factors that influenced physical activity, peer support for physical activity (p < .001), self-efficacy for physical activity (p < .001) and self-regulation for sitting less and moving more (p < .001) may explain 15.7% of the variance in physical activity. However, none of the variables that showed statistical significance with the sedentary behavior.
Conclusions: Male students engaged in more physical activity and less sedentary behavior than female counterparts. Self-efficacy for physical activity, self-regulation for sitting less and moving more, and family and peer support for physical activity are significant predictors of physical activity among university students. Accordingly, we suggest that the university’s health promotion practitioners adopt different strategies for male and female students, design diverse and interesting types of physical activity to increase participation, plan intervention programs to increase university students’ self-efficacy for physical activity, self-regulation for sitting less and moving more, and peer support for physical activity to increase students’ physical activity levels.