Skip to main content

A cross-sectional study of awareness of physical activity: associations with personal, behavioral and psychosocial factors



Interventions to promote physical activity frequently target hypothesized mediators of change, but these might be affected by a person's awareness of their own physical activity behavior. The paper aims to characterize a high-risk population by levels of awareness and to study associations between awareness and selected personal, behavioral and psychosocial factors.


Data were collected on physical activity behavior, physical activity awareness, behavioral and psychosocial factors and anthropometry cross-sectionally at 6-month follow-up in a physical activity promotion trial. Awareness was assessed by comparing dichotomous self-rated physical activity with achieving activity levels according to international guidelines. Four groups were distinguished: 'Realistic Active', 'Realistic Inactive', 'Overestimator', and 'Underestimator'. Data were analyzed with ANCOVA, correcting for previous interventions and current physical activity level.


Of 632 participants (mean age: 56.3 years), 321 were inactive, 61.4% of whom rated themselves as active ('Overestimators'). Compared to 'Realistic Inactives', 'Overestimators' were older, less likely to be smokers or to intend to increase their physical activity level, and had a lower body mass index. Furthermore, 'Overestimators' had similar scores to the 'Realistic Actives' on the psychological factors, but differed significantly from the 'Realistic Inactives'.


People who overestimate their physical activity level appear to be healthier than people who aware of their low activity level. Overestimators also scored more positively on various psychosocial factors and were also less likely to intend to change their physical activity behavior, making awareness a potential barrier in physical activity promotion. Physical activity promotion strategies might include interventions with a focus on increasing awareness in this hard to reach population.


Higher levels of physical activity are independently associated with various health benefits [14]. Yet a substantial proportion of the population in Western countries does not meet current international guidelines (i.e. engaging in moderate intensity physical activity for at least 30 minutes a day on 5 or more days of the week) [59]. Increasing population levels of activity therefore continues to be a major public health challenge [10]. Despite major advancements in the field, recent literature reviews on physical activity promotion suggest that there is only limited evidence for a moderately positive effect on physical activity levels and an absence of evidence for sustained changes [1113]. There remains uncertainty about why many of these interventions are ineffective. Recent publications have started to identify groups for whom interventions might be more successful [14] and the major barriers people to behavior change. One under-explored barrier to change might be individual's lack of awareness of their own inactive lifestyle.

Awareness of health behavior

Intention or motivation to change is one of the most important predictors of behavior change according to most of the commonly applied theoretical models [1517]. However, whether a person intends to change his/her behavior depends A) on the belief that a change in behavior will reduce health risks and B) on the extent to which a person perceives their own behavior as 'unhealthy' [18]. For health behaviors that are clearly defined, often dichotomous behaviors such as seat belt or condom use and smoking, awareness may be a less important issue than it is for more complex health behaviors such as physical activity and diet. Studies of both fruit and vegetable intake and dietary fat intake have shown that discrepancies exist between measured and subjectively perceived consumption, especially among unhealthy individuals [1921]. This lack of awareness also impacts on the predictive value of psychological models of behavior change, as misconception of one's own fruit and vegetable consumption has been shown to decrease the predictive value of the Theory of Planned Behavior [22].

Awareness and physical activity behavior

Physical activity is a complex, multi-dimensional behavior and is therefore difficult to assess. It takes place in a variety of different domains; in transportation, domestic life, occupation, and recreation and is spread out over the whole day and over several days of the week. This makes evaluating the adequacy of one's own physical activity level difficult, as it requires people to reduce this complex behavior into one global index, increasing the likelihood of misclassifications. In public health research to date, awareness of physical activity levels has received little attention. Two previously published studies have reported that 57 to 67% of the general population are realistic about their physical activity level [23, 24]. The studies also showed that 18 to 36% of the population overestimates their level of physical activity, which represents 48 to 61% of the currently inactive population. These unrealistic optimists (or overestimators) were on average younger and less educated than the realistic actives [25] and had a lower body mass index (BMI) than the people who were realistic about their inactive lifestyle [24]. They were also less likely to intend to increase their activity level [23, 25], possibly because they saw no personal relevance in the threat of physical inactivity [18].

A lack of awareness of one's own activity level may therefore have important implications. First, it might act as a barrier to behavior change as it may result in people not seeing the need to change and hence being unaffected by public health messages concerning physical activity [18]. Second, it might also result in inactive people being overlooked or neglected in health promotion efforts as these commonly target self-rated inactive populations.

The two previous studies on this topic both included generally healthy populations. It is therefore unclear whether this lack of awareness also exists within an identified high-risk population. It might be argued that people who have been identified with a lifestyle-related disorder have different perceptions of their own behavior. It is known that a disease diagnosis makes thoughts about possible causes more salient, [26] potentially making overestimation of health behavior less likely. The data used for the analyses presented in this paper were drawn from a physical activity promotion trial including a high-risk population from general practice. Evidence from the process evaluation of this trial indicated that physical activity overestimation was one of the major barriers for general practitioners in their counseling [27]. Moreover, it was also shown that the measurements conducted as part of this trial had an impact on level of awareness of physical activity [28]. These results indicate that awareness of physical activity level is also of relevance to high-risk populations. In order to identify individuals who are unaware of their low levels of physical activity and how best to target them with health promotion interventions, there is a need to improve understanding of the personal, behavioral and psychosocial factors associated with awareness of physical activity behavior in high-risk individuals.

The aim of the current paper is therefore to study awareness of physical activity behavior in a high-risk population recruited from general practice. Individuals will be characterized according to their level of awareness and associations between awareness and personal, behavioral and psychosocial factors will be studied.


Study design and recruitment

This paper presents analyses of cross-sectional data collected six months after the baseline measurement of participants in a randomized controlled trial of physical activity promotion in general practice (evaluation of Physician-based Assessment and Counseling for Exercise (PACE) intervention) [29]. A Solomon four-group design using a phased double randomization was applied in the study. First, block randomization to a physical activity intervention condition or control condition was performed at general practice-level. Next, to be able to assess a possible measurement effect, individual patients were randomized within general practices [28]. Half was randomized to a group participating in the baseline and 8-week follow-up measurement, the other half was not measured at these time points. All participants took part in the assessment six months after baseline and to increase the power of the analyses, this data set was used for the current analyses. Awareness is defined as the agreement between self-rated and self-reported activity according to the current guidelines [23]. Data were collected using questionnaires and research assistants measured basic anthropometry. The Medical Ethical Committee of the VU University Medical Center in Amsterdam, The Netherlands, approved the study protocol.

Participants were recruited from twenty-nine general practices, located throughout the Netherlands. The general practitioner (GP) identified a target population meeting the following inclusion criteria: (a) being diagnosed with hypertension and/or hypercholesterolemia and/or type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM), (b) aged between 18 and 70 years, (c) able to be at least moderately physically active, and (d) not being in the maintenance stage of the stages of change for regular physical activity. [17] The research team subsequently randomly selected a maximum of 90 patients per practice who each received an invitation letter from their GP and a leaflet with more detailed study information. To express willingness to participate, and to check eligibility, patients were asked to return a freepost reply-card on which they indicated the average number of days on which they spent at least 30 minutes in moderate-to-vigorous physical activity in the past six months. A total of 717 participants attended a baseline visit with their general practitioner and were included in the study, all providing written informed consent.


All study participants were invited for the outcome assessment six months after their first visit to their general practitioner (data collected between March 2002 and January 2003). They received a postal questionnaire together with a letter inviting them to visit their general practice at a fixed period during which research assistants undertook measurements of height, weight and waist circumference using standardized methods. Participants not attending this measurement session were encouraged to return their completed questionnaire by mail and provide self-reported height, weight and waist circumference. Fifty-nine participants provided self-reported anthropometry. Analyses with independent samples t-tests did not show differences between the values for this group and the group measured by the research team (p-values ranging from 0.44 to 0.99), and so all participants were included in the analyses.

Dependent variable – Awareness of physical activity level

Two measures were used to assess participants' awareness of physical activity. First, to assess self-rated physical activity, participants were asked to agree or disagree (dichotomous) with the statement 'I am currently regularly physically active'. Regular physical activity was defined as performing physical activity that makes you sweat and breathe harder for at least 30 minutes a day on five or more days of the week (i.e. ACSM/CDC guideline for regular physical activity) [5]. Second, the previously validated Short QUestionnaire to ASsess Health-enhancing physical activity (SQUASH-questionnaire) [30] was used to determine whether the participant was meeting the ACSM/CDC-guideline for regular physical activity. Subsequently, self-rated and self-reported physical activity level were grouped in a 2 × 2-table, creating four groups for level of awareness: Realistic Inactives, Realistic Actives, Overestimators, and Underestimators (see Figure 1).

Figure 1
figure 1

Classification of participants into categories of awareness (N = 632).

Independent variables

Questionnaires were used to assess age, highest level of education, current work or educational status, smoking status and level of physical activity, using number of minutes spent on at least moderate intensity physical activity (≥ 4 MET) as assessed with the SQUASH-questionnaire. Previously validated and extensively used 5-point Likert scale questionnaires were used to assess summary scores for the following psychosocial factors hypothesized to mediate the effect of physical activity interventions [31]: self-efficacy in two domains: making time for exercise and resisting relapse [32], perceived barriers to physical activity [33], perceived benefits of physical activity [33] and cognitive and behavioral processes of change [34]. Intention to change physical activity behavior in the short (i.e. one month) or long (i.e. six months) term, was measured using the following statement with a dichotomous outcome (yes/no): 'I intend to increase my level of physical activity in the next month/6 months' [34].


To test for overall differences between the four groups defined by awareness, Chi Square tests were applied for dichotomous and categorical variables (intention, smoking status, gender, level of education and work status) and Analyses of CoVariance (ANCOVA) was used for continuous data. Randomization to the two intervention conditions were included as covariates in the ANCOVAs, as previous analyses had shown that the physical activity intervention had resulted in positive changes in most of the psychosocial factors [35] and that the measurement intervention (i.e. participation in the measurements) had resulted in positive changes in self efficacy for making time for exercise [28]. Furthermore, minutes of at least moderate intensity physical activity per week was also included as a covariate based on the hypothesis that it is associated with the outcome (level of awareness) and with several of the exposure measures (such as BMI and the psychosocial factors). Differences between the four groups were tested with Bonferoni post-hoc tests when applying the ANCOVA, manual comparisons using multiple Chi Square tests were used for other outcome measures. Data were analyzed in 2006 in SPSS version 12.0 for Windows, and significance level was set at a p-value less than 0.05.


Sample characteristics

Six-month questionnaire data were available for 635 of the original 717 participants (88.6%), anthropometry data was collected on 562 (88.5% of 635) (more details on participant flow through recruitment and the study have been provided elsewhere) [28]. Three of the 635 participants were excluded because of incomplete physical activity data. No differences for age and gender were observed between those included in the analyses and those excluded. The average age of participants in the final sample was 56.3 years (SD: 9.1), 55.4% were male. Of the 632 participants, 43.2% correctly described themselves as active (RA), 31.2% overestimated their level of physical activity (OE), 19.6% correctly described themselves as inactive (RI) and only 6.1% underestimated their level of physical activity (UE) (see Table 1). Consequently, of the 321 people who were classified as inactive according to the self-reported data, 61.4% rated themselves as sufficiently active.

Table 1 Characteristics of participants categorized by their level of awareness (N = 632)

Characteristics of awareness groups

There were no overall differences between the four awareness groups for gender, highest level of education and work status. The people in the Realistic Inactive group were more likely to be smokers than the Overestimators or the people in the Realistic Active group (all p < 0.05) (see Table 1). The adjusted ANCOVA analyses showed an overall association between age and awareness (F-value = 5.806, df = 3, p = 0.001). Subsequent Bonferoni posthoc analyses showed that the Overestimators and Realistic Actives were older than the Underestimators, and the Overestimators were also older than the people in the Realistic Inactive group (all p < 0.05). Levels of physical activity also differed between the groups (F-value = 99.772, df = 3, p < 0.001), showing that people in both the Realistic Inactive and the Overestimator group were less active than the other two groups (both p < 0.001), although they were not significantly different from each other. Overestimators had a lower weight, BMI and smaller waist circumference than the Realistic Inactives (all: p < 0.05). The Realistic Actives also had a smaller waist circumference than Realistic Inactives (p < 0.01). Adjustment for interventions and physical activity levels did not affect the observed associations.

Awareness and psychosocial factors

Table 2 shows the adjusted means for the psychosocial factors by awareness groups. No overall differences between awareness groups were observed for scores on perceived benefits for physical activity, whereas statistically significant overall differences were observed for the other mediators of change (F-values ranging from 3.292 to 16.920, df = 3, p-values from 0.02 to <0.001). Post-hoc Bonferoni analyses showed that both the Realistic Inactive group and the Underestimators had higher scores for perceived barriers than the Realistic Active group and the Overestimators. Moreover, the people in the Realistic Inactive group had lower scores on both domains of self efficacy (making time for physical activity and resisting relapse) than the other awareness groups (all p-values <0.02). The Underestimators reported a higher use of the cognitive processes of change than the other groups, whereas the Realistic Inactives reported a higher use of the behavioral processes of change than the Overestimators. None of the associations were affected by adjustment for interventions or physical activity level.

Table 2 Adjusted means (standard error, SE), proportions and observed associations between awareness of physical activity (PA) level and physical activity-related psychosocial factors (N = 632)

A higher percentage of the Underestimators than the Overestimators and those in the Realistic Active group indicated that they intended to increase their physical activity within the next month and within the next 6 months. Long-term intention was also more positive for the people in the Realistic Inactive group.


Characteristics of awareness groups

61.4% of the inactive population included in this study rated themselves as sufficiently active and hence overestimated their level of physical activity. A small proportion of the participants (6.1%) underestimated their level of physical activity and those were younger than the people accurately rating themselves as active and the overestimators. In contrast to previous research in the general population [25, 24], in this high-risk group the overestimators were on average 1.8 years older and less likely to be current smokers than people who realistically rated themselves as inactive. In addition, they had a more favorable anthropometry profile as they had a lower weight, lower BMI and smaller waist circumference. These results suggest that in this high-risk population, overestimators were an older and apparently healthier population than the people who were aware of their inactive lifestyle. This group may have assumed that they were sufficiently active because of their more favorable health characteristics. It is common knowledge that physical inactivity is linked with weight gain and obesity, possibly leading people to conclude that not being overweight means that one is sufficiently active and that there is no need to increase activity [24]. It is interesting to see that this phenomenon is not only observed in a healthy population [23], but also in this population who are at high risk of developing cardiovascular disease due to conditions commonly associated with an unfavorable lifestyle.

Two previously published papers on awareness of physical activity reported similar proportions of overestimators within the inactive group, with figures ranging from 48% [24] to 61% [23], although these were assessed in the general population. Physical activity overestimation is of relevance to the current focus on population-level physical activity promotion, as overestimators may form a target population that is either difficult to reach or neglected in physical activity promotion efforts. One might argue that because the overestimators appear to be more healthy than the accurately inactives, they would be a less appropriate target for interventions. However, the population included in this study was already at high risk and any increases in physical activity could improve their current and future health and wellbeing [36]. Furthermore, higher levels of physical activity have been shown to be independently associated with several health benefits [2], indicating that increases in physical activity independent of weight changes are beneficial for health. Moreover, comparisons with national level data showed that the study population was on average less active and had a higher weight than the general Dutch population [37].

Awareness and psychosocial factors

Analyses of the scores on the mediators showed that the realistic inactive group and the underestimators differed in their level of self-efficacy and use of the cognitive processes of change. However, no differences were observed between the overestimators and the realistic actives, both scoring in the direction usually associated with higher levels of physical activity [38]. Scores for both groups were different from the realistic inactives. These results suggest that perception of one's activity level might be more strongly related to these psychosocial factors than one's actual activity level. This is in line with a previous study showing that the predictive value of the TPB model for fruit and vegetable intake was greater in the realistic population than in the unrealistic estimators [22]. Importantly, the results also showed that people who considered themselves inactive (the underestimators and the realistic inactives) were more likely to intend to increase their physical activity level than the ones who considered themselves sufficiently active (overestimators and realistic actives).

Theory-based intervention strategies commonly aim to achieve behavior change by facilitating change in various psychosocial factors, i.e. mediators. Moreover, minimal intervention strategies or web-based programs usually do this by relying on self-rated behavior and reported levels of the mediators [11, 39]. The results of this study indicate that targeting change in these hypothesized mediators of change in order to change physical activity levels might be ineffective without first facilitating realistic perceptions of activity levels. Providing feedback on behavior might be one way of raising awareness. Previous studies including feedback have shown that it increased intention to reduce fat intake and awareness of and intention to change vegetable intake [40]. Although in a separate study no differences in intention to change physical activity were detected after provision of immediate feedback on health indicators and fitness [41], which can be considered proxy-indicators of physical activity. The effect of providing feedback on awareness of and actual physical activity has not been studied to date, but may be an important aspect of health promotion.

Comparing our behavior

Overestimators appear to differ from the people who accurately estimate their own level of physical inactivity. The source of this optimistic bias is unknown, although a number of possibilities have been suggested: it can result from incorrect information or other cognitive errors, but it may also have a motivation origin as it serves the need to protect self-esteem or the desire to avoid feeling afraid [18]. Self-regulation theory suggests that we are continuously evaluating our own behavior against a standard and when a discrepancy is detected this would lead to an attempt to change the behavior so that it conforms more closely to the standard [42]. However, the chosen standard for comparison might not be the correct one. As the average population levels of activity are currently fairly low [68], people might not perceive themselves as insufficiently active because they see themselves as more active than average, creating positive optimism in their own perceptions. This is supported by a recent study showing that overestimators tend to use downward comparison (i.e. comparing to people who are doing worse then they are) whereas realistic inactives use upward comparison [24]. Furthermore, people base the decision to change their behavior on an evaluation of the time, effort and ability required to change (e.g. 'cost' or difficulty) [18]. Together with the difficulty of evaluating the adequacy of a complex behavior such as physical activity, this might result in people opting for the 'easy' option (positive optimism) as the other option (increasing physical activity) might be evaluated as too costly. This would imply that people may try to reduce the observed discrepancy by lowering the standard for comparison instead of changing their actual behavior [42]. That is to say intentionally comparing themselves with people who are less active, potentially for reasons of self-enhancement [24].

Study limitations

Previous research has shown that completing a detailed questionnaire on physical activity may help participants to create an overview of their physical activities throughout the week and consequently raise physical activity awareness [28]. This potential bias was controlled for as self-rated physical activity data were collected before completion of the physical activity questionnaire. However, as the data used for these analyses were collected six months into a physical activity promotion study, this measurement effect might have affected the observed prevalence. In addition, participation in the physical activity trail might have influenced the observed prevalence as well, limiting generalizibility, although the direction of this bias is difficult to assess. Despite the interventions' potential effect on the prevalence estimates, it is unlikely that these have affected the associations observed in the current analyses, which are largely in accordance with previous observations in the general population [22, 24, 25].

In contrast to previous studies, inclusion in the present study was based on self-reported number of days spent in at least moderate intensity physical activity in the previous 6 months. This might have led to the exclusion of both overestimators and accurately actives. The size of this potential bias is difficult to assess, but is likely to have resulted in an underestimation of the prevalence of these groups compared with an unselected group. Although a validated physical activity questionnaire was used in all studies, self-reported physical activity is known to be weakly correlated with overall energy expenditure and prone to social desirability bias [43, 44]. The use of an objective measure of physical activity might overcome this issue and will potentially provide a more accurate estimate of the prevalence of physical activity overestimation.

As expected, the realistic inactives and overestimators were on average much less active than the two other awareness groups. Although not statistically significant, overestimators reported more activity than accurate inactives with more than half of the overestimators reporting more than 150 minutes of activity per week (median: 180 mins/week). This raises the question what is considered to be sufficiently active: A) achieving a total of 150 minutes of activity per week or B) being active for at least 30 minutes per day spread out over at least 5 days of the week [5]. In this study, being sufficiently active was defined according to the second definition and this was explained to the participants before their self rating of activity. Using the alternative definition would result in a lower percentage of people being classified as inactive (27.8%). The number of overestimators within this inactive group however would only be somewhat lower than we have reported, 51%. These issues highlight that the overestimators operate in a grey area between 'very inactive' and 'very active', making it difficult for them to accurately evaluate their level of activity against an arbitrary target. The target behavior should therefore be clearly defined and explained to the population in public health messages.

Public health and research implications

Misperceptions of one's own level of physical activity might act as a barrier to behavior change interventions as it may result in people not seeing the need to change and having a low intention to change. Moreover, individuals might be overlooked or neglected in health promotion efforts as these mainly target self-rated inactive populations. In addition, self-rated behavior is commonly used as the starting point on which the content of the subsequent intervention is based, as for example in individually tailored or stage-based interventions. Misclassification of stage of change might result in mismatched interventions which are unlikely to be effective [45, 46] and this should be taken into account in developing future interventions. As research on physical activity awareness has been scarce to date, many questions remain. Future work should focus on the impact of awareness on the potential to change behavior and the effectiveness of interventions, on how to effectively influence awareness and on the effects of changing awareness on both the mediators of change and on actual behavior. One suggested way of raising awareness is to encourage people to wear an objective measure of physical activity with a feedback function, such as a pedometer, providing them with immediate feedback on their behavior. There is some evidence that pedometers alone can influence behavior [47]. However, future studies need to show whether this is an effective strategy to raise awareness, whether it can be sustained and whether it improves the effectiveness of physical activity promotion interventions.


  1. Murray CJL, Lopez AD: The global burden of disease. Book The global burden of disease. 1996, City: Harvard School of Public Health

    Google Scholar 

  2. Blair SN, Brodney S: Effects of physical inactivity and obesity on morbidity and mortality: current evidence and research issues. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 1999, 31: S646-662. 10.1097/00005768-199911001-00025.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Wareham NJ, Wong MY, Day NE: Glucose intolerance and physical inactivity: the relative importance of low habitual energy expenditure and cardiorespiratory fitness. Am J Epidemiol. 2000, 152: 132-139. 10.1093/aje/152.2.132.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Wannamethee SG, Shaper AG: Physical activity in the prevention of cardiovascular disease: an epidemiological perspective. Sports Med. 2001, 31: 101-114. 10.2165/00007256-200131020-00003.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Pate RR, Pratt M, Blair SN, Haskell WL, Macera CA, Bouchard C, Buchner D, Ettinger W, Heath GW, King AC, et al: Physical activity and public health. A recommendation from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the American College of Sports Medicine. Jama. 1995, 273: 402-407. 10.1001/jama.273.5.402.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Ooijendijk WTM, Hildebrandt VH, Stiggelbout M: Trendrapport Bewegen en Gezondheid 2000/2001 [Dutch]. Book Trendrapport Bewegen en Gezondheid 2000/2001 [Dutch]. 2002, City: TNO Arbeid/TNO PG

    Google Scholar 

  7. Ham SA, Yore MM, Fulton JE, Kohl HWr: Prevalence of no leisure-time physical activity – 35 states and the district of Columbia, 1988–2002. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report. 2004, 53: 82-86.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Health Do: At least five a week: evidence on the impact of physical activity and its relationship to health. Book At least five a week: evidence on the impact of physical activity and its relationship to health. 2004, City: Department of Health

    Google Scholar 

  9. Ooijendijk WTM, Hildebrandt VH, Hopman-Rock M: Physical activity measured 2002–2004 [Dutch]. Book Physical activity measured 2002–2004 [Dutch]. 2006, City: TNO Quality of Lie

    Google Scholar 

  10. Wareham NJ, van Sluijs EM, Ekelund U: Physical activity and obesity prevention: a review of the current evidence. Proc Nutr Soc. 2005, 64: 229-247. 10.1079/PNS2005423.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. van Sluijs EM, van Poppel MN, van Mechelen W: Stage-based lifestyle interventions in primary care: are they effective?. Am J Prev Med. 2004, 26: 330-343.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Hillsdon M, Foster C, Thorogood M: Interventions for promoting physical activity. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2005, CD003180.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Eden KB, Orleans CT, Mulrow CD, Pender NJ, Teutsch SM: Does counseling by clinicians improve physical activity? A summary of the evidence for the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. Ann Intern Med. 2002, 137: 208-215.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. King AC, Marcus B, Ahn D, Dunn AL, Rejeski WJ, Sallis JF, Coday M: Identifying subgroups that succeed or fail with three levels of physical activity intervention: the Activity Counseling Trial. Health Psychol. 2006, 25: 336-347. 10.1037/0278-6133.25.3.336.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Azjen I, Fishbein M: Understanding attitudes and predicting social behavior. 1980, Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall

    Google Scholar 

  16. Bandura A: Social foundations of thought and action: a social cognitive theory. 1986, Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall

    Google Scholar 

  17. Prochaska JO, DiClemente CC: Stages and processes of self-change of smoking: toward an integrative model of change. J Consult Clin Psychol. 1983, 51: 390-395. 10.1037/0022-006X.51.3.390.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Weinstein ND: The precaution adoption process. Health Psychol. 1988, 7: 355-386. 10.1037/0278-6133.7.4.355.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Bowen DJ, Fries E, Hopp HP: Effects of dietary fat feedback on behavioral and psychological variables. J Behav Med. 1994, 17: 589-604. 10.1007/BF01857599.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Lechner L, Brug J, De Vries H: Misconception of fruit and vegetable consumption: differences between objective and subjective estimation of intake. J Nutr Educ. 1997, 29: 313-320.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Brug J, van Assema P, Kok GJ, Lenderink T, Glanz K: Self-rated dietary fata intake: association with objective assessment of fat, psychological factors, and intention to change. J Nutr Educ. 1994, 26: 218-223.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Bogers RP, Brug J, van Assema P, Dagnelie PC: Explaining fruit and vegetable consumption: the theory of planned behaviour and misconception of personal intake levels. Appetite. 2004, 42: 157-166. 10.1016/j.appet.2003.08.015.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Ronda G, Van Assema P, Brug J: Stages of change, psychological factors and awareness of physical activity levels in The Netherlands. Health Promot Int. 2001, 16: 305-314. 10.1093/heapro/16.4.305.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Lechner L, Bolman C, Van Dijke M: Factors related to misperception of physical activity in The Netherlands and implications for health promotion programmes. Health Promot Int. 2006, 21: 104-112. 10.1093/heapro/dal011.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  25. De Ridder C, Lechner L: Overschatting van het eigen bewegingsgedrag: gevolgen voor determinanten en stages of change. TSG. 2004, 5: 290-298.

    Google Scholar 

  26. Winterbottom A, Harcourt D: Patients' experience of the diagnosis and treatment of skin cancer. J Adv Nurs. 2004, 48: 226-233. 10.1111/j.1365-2648.2004.03191.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. van Sluijs EM, van Poppel MN, Stalman WA, van Mechelen W: Feasibility and acceptability of a physical activity promotion programme in general practice. Fam Pract. 2004, 21: 429-436. 10.1093/fampra/cmh414.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. van Sluijs EM, van Poppel MN, Twisk JW, van Mechelen W: Physical activity measurements affected participants' behavior in a randomized controlled trial. J Clin Epidemiol. 2006, 59: 404-411. 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2005.08.016.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. van Sluijs EM, van Poppel MN, Twisk JW, Chin APMJ, Calfas KJ, van Mechelen W: Effect of a tailored physical activity intervention delivered in general practice settings: results of a randomized controlled trial. Am J Public Health. 2005, 95: 1825-1831. 10.2105/AJPH.2004.044537.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Wendel-Vos GC, Schuit AJ, Saris WH, Kromhout D: Reproducibility and relative validity of the short questionnaire to assess health-enhancing physical activity. J Clin Epidemiol. 2003, 56: 1163-1169. 10.1016/S0895-4356(03)00220-8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Lewis BA, Marcus BH, Pate RR, Dunn AL: Psychosocial mediators of physical activity behavior among adults and children. Am J Prev Med. 2002, 23: 26-35. 10.1016/S0749-3797(02)00471-3.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Sallis JF, Grossman RM, Pinski RB, Patterson TL, Nader PR: The development of scales to measure social support for diet and exercise behaviors. Prev Med. 1987, 16: 825-836. 10.1016/0091-7435(87)90022-3.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Sallis JF, Hovell MF, Hofstetter CR, Faucher P, Elder JP, Blanchard J, Caspersen CJ, Powell KE, Christenson GM: A multivariate study of determinants of vigorous exercise in a community sample. Prev Med. 1989, 18: 20-34. 10.1016/0091-7435(89)90051-0.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Marcus BH, Rossi JS, Selby VC, Niaura RS, Abrams DB: The stages and processes of exercise adoption and maintenance in a worksite sample. Health Psychol. 1992, 11: 386-395. 10.1037/0278-6133.11.6.386.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Van Sluijs EM, Van Poppel MN, Twisk JW, Brug J, Van Mechelen W: The positive effect on determinants of physical activity of a tailored, general practice-based physical activity intervention. Health Educ Res. 2005, 20: 345-356. 10.1093/her/cyg129.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Bauman AE: Updating the evidence that physical activity is good for health: an epidemiological review 2000–2003. J Sci Med Sport. 2004, 7: 6-19. 10.1016/S1440-2440(04)80273-1.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Mens en Maatschappij – Gezondheid en welzijn – Leefstijl – Gerapporteerde leefstijl. []

  38. Trost SG, Owen N, Bauman AE, Sallis JF, Brown W: Correlates of adults' participation in physical activity: review and update. MedSci Sports Exerc. 2002, 34: 1996-2001. 10.1097/00005768-200212000-00020.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Marshall AL, Owen N, Bauman AE: Mediated approaches for influencing physical activity: update of the evidence on mass media, print, telephone and website delivery of interventions. J Sci Med Sport. 2004, 7: 74-80. 10.1016/S1440-2440(04)80281-0.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Oenema A: Promoting awareness of fat, fruit and vegetable intake [PhD thesis]. 2004, Maastricht University

    Google Scholar 

  41. Proper KI, van der Beek AJ, Hildebrandt VH, Twisk JW, van Mechelen W: Short term effect of feedback on fitness and health measurements on self reported appraisal of the stage of change. Br J Sports Med. 2003, 37: 529-534. 10.1136/bjsm.37.6.529.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Carver CS, Scheier MF: On the self-regulation of behavior. 1998, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press

    Book  Google Scholar 

  43. Sallis JF, Saelens BE: Assessment of physical activity by self-report: status, limitations, and future directions. Res Q Exerc Sport. 2000, 71: S1-14.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Adams SA, Matthews CE, Ebbeling CB, Moore CG, Cunningham JE, Fulton J, Hebert JR: The effect of social desirability and social approval on self-reports of physical activity. Am J Epidemiol. 2005, 161: 389-398. 10.1093/aje/kwi054.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Blissmer B, McAuley E: Testing the requirements of stages of physical activity among adults: the comparative effectiveness of stage-matched, mismatched, standard care, and control interventions. Ann Behav Med. 2002, 24: 181-189. 10.1207/S15324796ABM2403_03.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. Dijkstra A, Conijn B, De Vries H: A match-mismatch test of a stage model of behaviour change in tobacco smoking. Addiction. 2006, 101: 1035-1043. 10.1111/j.1360-0443.2006.01419.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. Tudor-Locke C, Bell RC, Myers AM, Harris SB, Ecclestone NA, Lauzon N, Rodger NW: Controlled outcome evaluation of the First Step Program: a daily physical activity intervention for individuals with type II diabetes. Int J Obes Relat Metab Disord. 2004, 28: 113-119. 10.1038/sj.ijo.0802485.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

Download references


We thank the Netherlands Heart Foundation (grant no: 98.189), the Health Research and Development Council of the Netherlands (grant no: 2200.0073), the Ministry of Health Welfare and Sport, and NOC*NSF for their financial support of the study.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations


Corresponding author

Correspondence to Esther MF van Sluijs.

Additional information

Competing interests

The author(s) declare that they have no competing interests.

Authors' contributions

EvS participated in the design of the study, performed data collection and data analyses and drafted and revised the manuscript. MvP participated in the design of the study and contributed to interpretation of the data and revision of the manuscript. SG contributed to interpretation of the data and revision of the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Authors’ original submitted files for images

Below are the links to the authors’ original submitted files for images.

Authors’ original file for figure 1

Rights and permissions

This article is published under license to BioMed Central Ltd. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

van Sluijs, E.M., Griffin, S.J. & van Poppel, M.N. A cross-sectional study of awareness of physical activity: associations with personal, behavioral and psychosocial factors. Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act 4, 53 (2007).

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI:


  • Physical Activity
  • Physical Activity Level
  • Psychosocial Factor
  • Physical Activity Behavior
  • Physical Activity Intervention