Keywords
gender, gender gap, sport, physical activity
-
Views
39
Downloads
How to cite this article
Cummins H and Byrne M. Understanding the determinants of the gender gap in physical activity and sports participation among young adults: a mixed-methods study [version 1; peer review: 1 approved with reservations]. HRB Open Res 2024, 7:13 (https://doi.org/10.12688/hrbopenres.13827.1)
NOTE: If applicable, it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in all citations of this article.
Export Citation
Sciwheel
EndNote
Ref. Manager
Bibtex
ProCite
Sente
▬
✚
Research Article
Understanding the determinants of the gender gap in physical activity and sports participation among young adults: a mixed-methods study
[version 1; peer review: 1 approved with reservations]
PUBLISHED 07 Mar 2024
OPEN PEER REVIEW
REVIEWER STATUS
Abstract
Corresponding author:
Hannah Cummins
Competing interests:
No competing interests were disclosed.
Grant information:
The author(s) declared that no grants were involved in supporting this work.
Copyright:
© 2024 Cummins H and Byrne M.
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.
How to cite: Cummins H and Byrne M. Understanding the determinants of the gender gap in physical activity and sports participation among young adults: a mixed-methods study [version 1; peer review: 1 approved with reservations]. HRB Open Res 2024, 7:13 (https://doi.org/10.12688/hrbopenres.13827.1)
First published: 07 Mar 2024, 7:13 (https://doi.org/10.12688/hrbopenres.13827.1)
Latest published: 07 Mar 2024, 7:13 (https://doi.org/10.12688/hrbopenres.13827.1)
Introduction
The World Health Organisation (2018) has noted the benefits of physical activity (PA) in preventing conditions such as hypertension and obesity, with associated improvements in mental health and quality of life, thus recommending 150 minutes of moderate intensity PA weekly for those aged 18–64. Despite this, over a quarter of the world’s adult population are not sufficiently active (World Health Organization, 2020). Lee et al. (2012) estimated that physical inactivity accounts for 6% of the coronary heart disease burden, 7% of type 2 diabetes cases, 10% of breast cancers, and 9% of premature deaths, worldwide. If physical inactivity were lowered by just 10%, half a million lives could be saved each year. The WHO has therefore challenged each country to decrease their national inactivity by 10%, by 2025 (World Health Organization, 2018).
In addition to global concerns regarding inactivity, a PA gender gap has been previously described, in which females are less active than males. Higher inactivity levels have been reported in women (27%) than in men (20%) across 142 countries, with more women inactive than men in all but eight countries (Mielke et al., 2018). Sallis et al. (2016) also noted persistent gender disparities in inactivity, with 137 out of 146 countries exhibiting higher inactivity levels among women. It has been suggested that targeting the gender gap in PA is a necessary step toward inactivity reduction (Brown et al., 2016; Mielke et al., 2018).
Sport Ireland, the authority responsible for sport development in Ireland, conducts the Irish Sports Monitor (ISM) biennially, evaluating the sports participation (SP) and PA levels of Irish people (Sport Ireland, 2019). Through these surveys, a gender gap in SP in Ireland has been consistently reported, since the ISM’s inception in 2007 to the most recent survey in 2019 (Sport Ireland, 2019; The Economic and Social Research Institute et al., 2007), with males found to be consistently more active than females across all years of the ISM. Positively, the overall gap in SP has reduced from 15.7% in 2007 to just 3.4% in 2019. However, the gender gap is especially prominent in young people, with a 14% gap in those aged 16–19 years and a 12% gap in those aged 20–24 years (Sport Ireland, 2019). In relation to PA specifically, the Healthy Ireland Summary Report (2019) found a 20% gap in adequate PA levels between males and females aged 15 – 24 years, the widest gap amongst all the age groups.
Murphy et al. (2020) explored the PA and SP behaviours of Irish secondary school students (mean age = 14.8, SD = 1.5) and found that males were nearly twice as likely to be adequately physically active than females, with girls less active across all school years and only 1.1% of female students still meeting the WHO guidelines for their age group by their final school year. Large gender differences also existed in those engaging in team sport (58% = females, 76% = males). Following this trend, in a study conducted by Student Sport Ireland (2016), gender was a significant predictor of PA in Irish third-level students (mean age = 23.17, SD = 6.7), with 71% of males highly active compared to 58% of females. Gender was also a significant predictor of SP, with female university students 30% less likely than males to participate in sport.
Regarding what is already known about the predictors of PA and SP in young Irish people, Student Sport Ireland (2016) found that more female (39%) than male (26%) students knew the recommended PA guidelines, despite statistics favouring male dominance in SP and PA levels. Knowledge of the guidelines did not predict high activity, with 67% of those who did not have an accurate knowledge of the guidelines sufficiently active, compared to 60% of those who did know the guidelines. Evidence suggests that though a person may understand health information, they may not make health decisions on this basis (National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine, 2017). People incorporate their values and beliefs into their health behaviour decisions, suggesting knowledge is not sufficient in changing attitudes, intentions, or behaviours (Champion & Skinner, 2008). Subsequently, alternative theories of health behaviour are required to understand and address female inactivity. The COM-B model (Michie et al., 2011) and the theoretical domains framework (TDF; Michie et al., 2005) consider knowledge while also considering other determinants of behaviour.
The COM-B model suggests that three constructs determine behaviour: capability, opportunity, and motivation (Michie et al., 2011). Capability relates to both physical (e.g., skill) and psychological (e.g., knowledge) ability to perform a behaviour. Opportunity relates to both social opportunity (e.g., societal expectations) and physical opportunity (e.g., access to facilities) to perform a behaviour. Motivation can be automatic (e.g., habits) or reflective (e.g., goal setting; Cane et al., 2012). The TDF, also developed by Michie and colleagues (2005), has been described as complementary to the COM-B model (see Atkins et al., 2017; Cane et al., 2012). The TDF is a framework consisting of 128 behaviour change constructs grouped into 14 domains, bringing together 33 different health behaviour change theories aiming to understand the determinants of health behaviour. Cane et al. (2012) indicated that the TDF domains can be mapped onto the COM-B triad.
From a review of the current literature, the TDF and COM-B model have successfully informed study designs and interventions in relation to PA, with a variety of populations (see Flannery et al., 2018; Haith-Cooper et al., 2018). To the knowledge of the authors, these theories have not been operationalised to understand the determinants of PA and SP in young adults. In addition to this, predictors of PA and SP vary from country to country, suggesting that it is important to incorporate the Irish population into evaluations that may influence Irish policy (Lunn et al., 2013).
Ultimately, understanding the gender gap is an important factor in addressing health inequity, with women are denied the health benefits of increased PA (Durstine et al., 2013). With physical inactivity the fourth leading cause of death globally (Kohl et al., 2012), the desire to maximise PA levels in women is imperative. Therefore, the current study is designed to further understand the barriers and facilitators of PA and SP behaviour in Irish males and females aged 18–24 using the TDF and COM-B model. Such information is required to develop effective interventions aimed at reducing the gender gap, ensuring health equity for all.
The current project adopted a mixed methods approach involving two studies. First, with a gender gap already identified by the ISM 2019 report (Sport Ireland, 2019), a secondary analysis of the ISM 2019 data was conducted to answer the following research questions:
1. Is there a significant difference between males and females in what motivates them to engage in SP and PA?
2. Is there a significant difference between males and females in opportunities to engage in SP and PA?
3. Is there a significant difference between males and females in capability to engage in SP and PA?
Second, a qualitative study employing one-to-one interviews, guided by the TDF and the COM-B model, was conducted with young adults to further explore the determinants of SP and PA, with a particular focus on the perceived factors influencing the gender gap.
Methods
Study design
The current research constituted a mixed design in which both quantitative and qualitative methods were utilised. Study 1 was a secondary analysis of data from the ISM 2019 (see Sport Ireland, 2019), a population-based survey aimed at assessing the PA and SP levels of Ireland’s people. This focused specifically on items related to capability, opportunity, and motivation in relation to PA levels in males and females aged 18–24. Study 2 was a qualitative study, using a framework analysis approach, involving semi-structured interviews with males and females aged 18–24 to assess the barriers and facilitators to male and female PA and SP, while also exploring experiences of the gender gap.
Ethical considerations
Written, informed consent was obtained from all participants, including consenting to their anonymised data being quoted in the research write up and any subsequent publication. All data were stored on the university’s OneDrive system for data-protection purposes. The research protocol was approved by the School of Psychology Research Ethics Committee at the University of Galway.
Measures
Study 1
PA Levels
Data were available through the ISM 2019 regarding how many minutes of physical activity each participant engaged in per week. This was then compared to the WHO guidelines (150 minutes per week), to determine if participants met such standards (World Health Organization, 2020).
Determinants of PA
To measure the determinants of PA, data from a module from the ISM 2019 was utilised. This module was guided by the Determinants of Physical Activity Questionnaire (DPAQ) and the COM-B model. The DPAQ is underpinned by the TDF and is a measure that identifies the specific determinants of PA engagement (Taylor et al., 2013). The items (n = 12) included in this module were mapped onto the COM-B model and broken down into 3 categories: capability (n = 4), opportunity (n = 4), and motivation (n = 4). Items were measured on a 5-point Likert scale, in which participants indicated the extent to which they agreed with a particular statement (1 = strongly disagree, 5 = strongly agree). Scores were calculated for each category, with high scores indicating greater capability, opportunity, and motivation for each participant. Possible scores ranged from a low of 4 to a high of 20 in each category. Reverse scoring was conducted where appropriate.
Study 2
The interview schedule was guided by the TDF and COM-B model and aimed to explore the determinants of PA and SP. Questions fell under a TDF domain which was further broken down under a COM-B domain: the TDF domains of Knowledge and skill, beliefs about capability, and memory, attention and decision-making processes fell under the COM-B domain of capability; the TDF domains of environmental context and resources and social influence fell under the COM-B domain of opportunity; the TDF domains of beliefs about consequences and emotion fell under the COM-B domain of motivation. The schedule and procedure were piloted by interviewing one male and one female aged between 18–24. Pilot interviews were not included in the final sample. Inclusion criteria included all 18–24-year-olds who spoke English. Convenience sampling was undertaken at the University of Galway, with eligible students invited to take part via email. Recruitment continued until saturation occurred.
Procedure
Study 1
Data from 18–24-year-olds who participated in the ISM 2019 were extracted, with a secondary analysis of data specific to the COM-B module further analysed using IBM SPSS Statistics software for windows, version 26.
Study 2
Males and females aged 18–24 were invited to take part through email and the Sona System, the participant management software utilised by the University of Galway. The students that signed up via the Sona System received 2 credits toward their course requirements by participating in this study. Those who did not sign up through this system did not receive any incentive. Recruitment and data collection took place between February and March 2021. Participants were provided with a link to an information sheet and a consent form via Microsoft Forms, prior to engaging in the interview. The interviews took place on a day and time suitable for the participant by one researcher (HC), via Zoom (Zoom, 2019), and lasted approximately an hour. Audio was recorded for the purpose of transcription. Further verbal consent was collected at the beginning of the interview. The participant was given the opportunity to ask any questions and was informed that they could terminate their participation at any time. Upon completion, each participant was debriefed and thanked. Interviews were transcribed verbatim. The researcher (HC) kept a research diary, where reflexive notes, impressions of the data and thoughts about analysis throughout the process were recorded.
Data analysis
Study 1
Data analysis was performed using IBM SPSS Statistics software for windows, version 26. A series of independent t-tests were conducted to determine if differences existed between males (n = 88) and females (n = 70) on their total capability, opportunity, and motivation scores. Independent t-tests were also conducted on each item, to further understand potential disparities between genders under the COM-B categories.
Study 2
NVivo software was used to facilitate data analysis in study 2. The analysis strategy was determined before interviews were conducted, in which a deductive, framework approach was to be utilised (see Gale et al., 2013), with the interview questions falling under specific TDF domains. Each transcript was read and re-read numerous times and coded by one researcher (HC). The iterative process of coding began with open coding, line by line, followed by axial coding in which themes were identified. Themes were mapped onto the domains of the TDF and further broken down into the COM-B categories. Recruitment continued until saturation occurred across the theoretical domains.
Results
Study 1
Descriptive characteristics of participants
Data from 158 individuals (males = 55.7%, females = 44.3%) aged between 18–24 (M = 21.15, SD = 1.94) were analysed. Regarding the WHO recommendations, 73% of females (SD = .45) and 64% of males (SD = .48) did not meet PA guidelines. Average scores for males and females on the COM-B variables can be seen in Table 1.
Table 1. Average Scores on COM-B Variables for Males and Females in Study 1.
| COM-B Scores | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| N | M | SD | ||
| Capability | Male | 88 | 17.22 | 2.97 |
| Female | 70 | 16.50 | 3.05 | |
| Opportunity | Male | 88 | 16.41 | 2.89 |
| Female | 70 | 15.64 | 3.13 | |
| Motivation | Male | 88 | 16.25 | 4.00 |
| Female | 70 | 15.67 | 3.49 | |
Capability
No significant differences were found between groups on their total capability (t(156) = 1.49, p = .139). On individual items, a significant difference was found between males and females in scores on the item “I know what days and times I can do PA” (t(156) = 2.23, p = .027), with more males (M = 4.20, SD = 1.08) than females (M = 3.80, SD = 1.19) responding that they know when they can engage in PA. No significant difference was found on the other items in this category.
Opportunity
There was no significant difference between groups on their total opportunity scores (t(156) = 1.60, p = .112) There was a significant difference on the item “I don’t have anyone to do PA with” (t(156) = 2.17, p = .031), with more males (M = 4.09, SD = 1.19) than females (M = 3.67, SD = 1.22) having someone to exercise with. No significant difference was found on the other items in this category.
Motivation
No significant difference was found between groups on their total motivation scores (t(156) = .96, p = .341) scores. Genders did not differ on their responses to any items in this scale.
Study 2
Demographics
Sixteen participants took part in semi-structured interviews (age range 18–24, M = 19.56, SD = 1.58; 75% were female). Most individuals met the WHO recommendation for PA and described themselves as being physically active (see Table 2). Half of the sample engaged in sport, while all engaged in a form of PA, such as going for a walk or working out individually. Table 2 provides descriptive information on the sample for study 2.
Table 2. Descriptive Findings of Interviewees (n = 16) in Study 2.
Analysed using a framework approach, the themes described below are related to TDF domains which were further categorised under the capability, opportunity and motivation variables of the COM-B triad, highlighting potential barriers and facilitators to engaging in PA for this sample. Quotes are labelled by gender and participant number, i.e., F1, M2, etc.
Capability
Knowledge and skill
Most males and females did not know the WHO guidelines for PA, varying widely in their understanding of how much moderate intensity PA is recommended, with most believing that an hour every day is required to maintain health. In relation to understanding the term “moderate intensity” some knew that it related to elevated heart rate, whereas most others confused moderate intensity PA (e.g., a brisk walk) with vigorous intensity PA (e.g., a run).
Beliefs about capability
Most participants believed that they could do PA and SP to a good standard. All male participants expressed confidence in engaging in PA and SP, and none named capability-related barriers to PA or SP. Most of the female participants felt confident when they engaged in PA, however, capability-related barriers were named. Some expressed that their physical health impeded their physical capability to engage in PA, with one participant naming her menstrual cycle as a barrier.
I'm actually on medication for my periods because it was stopping me from being able to [engage in show jumping]. I'd be really lightheaded and faint for three days. So, if it were coming up to a show and it would fall on that period of time, I wouldn't actually be able to go. (F5)
Psychological capability, specifically behavioural regulation, was named by female participants as a barrier. Some felt as though they were incapable of motivating themselves to engage in PA.
Memory, attention and decision-making processes
Most participants expressed that routine was important to their engagement in PA and SP. Though routine was important for males, most said that they do not engage in planning. However, this was an important facilitator for females. Both males and females used technology to assist in setting and achieving their PA goals, with tracking apps popular for those who jog or run, and wearable devices used to track and motivate the individual to reach a certain step-count every day. Some females found the opposite to be true, feeling demotivated when they did not reach expectations exerted on them by their technology.
And I tried to do it, like, maybe once a week, and I found that I was kind of trying to beat my score on it. And then I got a little bit frustrated if I didn't beat my score on a certain day. But it was, kind of, it was a, sort of, disguised double edged sword or something. (F10)
Opportunity
Environmental context and resources
Themes under this domain related to any circumstance of a participant's situation or environment that affected their engagement in PA and SP and pertained to the COM-B category of opportunity. Most participants felt they had facilities available to them that enabled their engagement in PA and SP. The greatest barrier mentioned in this domain was time-management, for both genders. For this specific group, all participants were students, with their engagement in education placing a constraint on time to do PA.
Ehm, especially with assignments coming up, or obviously, with the Leaving Cert last year as well, it was really hard to fit in exercising because obviously, it can't be your priority then. (F4)
Participants expressed that they felt pressure to prioritise other things such as working and college over their PA and SP, as this was expected of their age group.
And yeah, it's when you get older into, like, your 20s and you're like 21, and 21–25 you have to work, you have to go to college, you're not gunna have time to be practicing the whole time. (F1)
Social influence
For males, their social circle was positively influential, or had no impact on their decision to engage in PA or SP. Females, on the other hand, appeared to be heavily impacted by their family and peers in relation to their PA behaviours, in both positive and negative ways. Positive social influence transpired through verbal encouragements from others and by seeing friends and family engage in PA or SP. Being around people who are physically active was named as a facilitator. However, being around those who are inactive was named as a barrier.
Ehm, yeah, sometimes like, if they're not in the mood to do it, or they want to watch TV or something? I'd be like "oh, like, I'll do that later or something and we'll watch this now". Or, if I want to go for a walk, maybe sometimes they've already done it, or they don't want to go today because they did it yesterday. You know, we might not be on the same schedule so that sometimes puts me off. (F12)
Motivation
Beliefs about consequences
Males and females shared similar beliefs about the advantages of engaging in PA, with nearly all participants naming improved mental health, followed closely by improved physical health, as the main advantages of engaging in moderate intensity PA. Males were more likely to say that stress-management is an advantage of PA.
Like, when you're playing rugby, or going to the gym, like, it's a really great reliever of stress and kind of different issues like that, you know, you can just go there and just do your workout and put your headphones on and relax and not think about anything else and just work out. (M9)
Some females named maintaining physical appearance as an advantage of engaging in PA, while males did not. Other females named an increase in their sense of capability and confidence as an advantage of engaging in PA.
And this might sound a bit silly, but like to feel how strong your body is, and capable it is of doing things. (F2)
Emotion
In relation to PA, all participants said they experienced positive emotions after PA and that such feelings make it easier to engage in PA again. However, in relation to SP, emotions varied greatly, with some describing their SP experiences as an “emotional rollercoaster”. Despite this, most participants believed “the good days outweighed the bad”. These barriers and facilitators were evident in both the male and female participants.
Mm, well sport is a more of a tricky one, I think, because there's wins and losses in it. And when you win, you feel so good. But when you lose, it's so like, it is kind of devastating. And you see all your friends, and they're upset, and they're crying and things. But I think the wins kind of make the losses worth it with sports. (F2)
The gender gap
Every participant was aware that a gender gap is present in Irish SP and PA. Participants disclosed their experience of gender stereotypes, with many females expressing that they were expected to stop playing sport at one of two time points: in their first or final year of second-level education. Female participants were either actively encouraged to stop playing sport at this age to focus on their education, or they used “needing to focus on education” as a valued excuse to stop playing sport, even if this was not true. This expectation was a suggested cause for the current gender gap in SP and PA.
So, it's not expected of you to continue playing. Just expected to stop and focus on your schoolwork or whatever, like. But I think it's really different for the boys. Like the boys are kind of not expected to keep playing but it's very, like… it's very, like, “Oh, isn't it great they're still playing and help them through studies to give them a break”. But when you're a girl, it's kind of like “Jesus she's still playing, like how is she going to balance that”. Like, you know, I feel like… it’s like there's a double standard like, “Oh, girls can't do what boys can.”, you know? (F1)
Both genders proposed that females have less access to resources. This is encapsulated by one participant’s story below:
Okay, so from just even playing Gaelic from a young age, let's say, the boys would always get gear, and I've never gotten any gear, over the 10 years I was there, we always had to pay for our own stuff. And they got a new set, like full set every… at least one set a year. And then loads of extra stuff if they were winning. They'd always have multiple trainers; we'd struggle to get one. Ehm, what else… the pitches; there was always a problem. They'd always have preference. Or if we were on it, they'd kick us off it. For matches, we'd never be allowed to play on the main pitch, it would always be on the training pitch. Even if there was no one there, it would just be that way, women didn't train or didn't play on the main pitch. I suppose to keep the quality of the pitch for the men. Dressing rooms? Men had their own main dressing room. We didn't have any designated dressing room, just whatever one was free. There were times where we obviously, we had to come out of it, and we'd have no dressing room, and we'd have to just leave our bags and stuff on the side of the pitch. (F12)
The experiences detailed within this participant’s story were echoed throughout many participants retelling of the same tale, with the addition of less access to equipment, transport, and funding than their male counterparts. Another common gender-gap related barrier experienced by females was a lack of opportunity, the fight against which is illustrated by the amalgamation of many Gaelic Athletic Association (GAA) clubs to make up female teams across the country.
We're not the only club in the county, like every... there's three or four other clubs that are all joined together. And like that doesn't really happen in the boy’s clubs at all. (F1)
The male participants also recognised the disparity in opportunities between males and females.
Like even my sister's team, they won the county championship back home during COVID times and they were meant to go on to play in the All-Irelands, but it then just got cancelled, it wasn't even organized to be replayed. Like, it was just straight out cancelled for literally no reason. Whereas the men's was just rescheduled. (M9)
The subject of encouragement and support was also broached, with most participants believing that males are encouraged more in sport.
Well, even just at home, our men's team gets a lot more funding than we do in general, they also get way more supporters at matches and all that really, there's more hype when they're in the final than when we're in the final. (F4)
Some female participants had also received negative comments in relation to their SP, usually around their capability to engage in their sport as a woman.
You're a woman, you're small, you're not able to. But women are able to do just as well as men are. (F5)
Many participants expressed disdain for the lack of media coverage of female sport, particularly in relation to the GAA sports. The consensus was that male team sports receive more attention than female team sports, with more spectators and greater broadcast coverage of male sport. Some suggested that there is greater respect for male sport, with one participant even expressing how she had been sexualised within her sport, preventing her continued engagement.
He didn't view me as a sports person. He just viewed me as like a woman in a swimsuit. And I think that, kind of, people don't view women as sports people. (F10)
A summary of the TDF-related barriers and facilitators to PA and SP in both genders, grouped by COM-B categories, can be found in Table 3.
Table 3. Summary of TDF-Related Barriers and Facilitators to PA and SP in Males and Females Highlighted in Study 2, Grouped by COM-B Categories.
Discussion
The current research aimed to explore the barriers and facilitators to PA and SP for males and females aged 18–24 in Ireland. With relatively high scores on all COM-B categories for both males and females in study 1, and no significant differences between genders on these scores, most of the sample believed they were capable of, had the opportunity to and were motivated to engage in PA behaviours, unaffected by their gender (see Table 2).
In study 2, many similarities arose between genders in terms of barriers and facilitators to PA, which may help to further understand the findings of study 1. For example, the interviews of study 2 highlighted a lack of understanding in both genders regarding the recommended PA guidelines for their age group. Although knowledge does not predict behaviour, as was demonstrated in a Student Sport Ireland Report (2016), this is still concerning as lower health literacy predicts poorer health outcomes (Mõttus et al., 2014). Individuals require knowledge in order to make well-informed health decisions, suggesting this misunderstanding should be addressed in both genders. Another similarity came from the reasons for engaging in PA for each gender, which were (a) mental health and (b) physical health. Most named mental health as the first reason they engage in PA, suggesting that targeting such a motivator within interventions for both genders would be valuable.
Despite these similarities however, study two suggested gender differences within the domains of beliefs about capability, beliefs about consequences, memory, attention and decision-making processes and social influence. Regarding beliefs about capability, males were more likely to feel confident in their PA and SP than females were. Previous research has suggested that males thrive in the historically masculinised, heteronormative framework of sport, into which females have had to integrate themselves, potentially further reinforcing restrictive norms for both genders (Zipp & Nauright, 2018). It has been proposed that females feel less confident in their abilities if a task is traditionally “masculine” or if the situation is of a competitive nature. Solmon et al. (2003), further explored beliefs around gender appropriateness of particular SP or PA and found that females who perceived the sport of hockey to be gender neutral were more confident in their ability to play the sport, than females who believed the activity was male oriented. Addressing gender stereotypes in sport may in turn address the barriers in relation to the beliefs females hold around their capability to engage in PA and SP.
The domain of social influence suggested differences in regard to barriers and facilitators to PA, with females more affected by their social circle than males. For females, those who lived around them held the capacity to either aid or impede their engagement in PA, making social influence both a facilitator and a barrier, depending on the circumstance. Males also experienced positive influence from their family and peers but expressed that their social circle would not affect their decision-making processes to the point of hindering their engagement. The importance of social influence for late teens has been explored previously, with Bunke et al. (2013) finding that the social support experienced at 16–17 years of age affected participant’s PA levels two years later. This suggests that social support may be particularly important in late adolescence, guiding the regulation of PA from external to internal means, in early adulthood. In support of the findings of the current study, an indirect association has been previously identified between the PA level of parents and friends, and the PA level of teenage participants (Cheng et al., 2014). Similarly, Woods et al. (2021) found that high interpersonal support from family, friends and teachers, was negatively associated with inactivity in Irish teenagers. Furthermore, those who attended an “all-girls school” were less likely to be active, indicating that the social support received in such an establishment may not be sufficient to encourage adequate PA levels in young women. In regard to the gender gap opening in early adolescence, many female participants in the current study recognised that they were encouraged to stop playing sport when they entered or exited second-level education.
Study 2 also highlighted interesting themes in relation to the gender gap. Overall, both genders expressed that females have less access to resources, have fewer opportunities, are encouraged less, and are supported less than males in relation to PA and SP. A lack of female sport coverage was particularly vexatious for some, with this phenomenon illuminated as the ultimate lack of support or encouragement from society, leaving the participants feeling unseen and unheard. The findings of the current study are similar to a recent study conducted on a Turkish sample, which found that fewer facilities for women, media misrepresentation, and familial pressure, are some of the factors limiting female SP (Yenilmez, 2021). Women have been historically excluded from SP, and though it has been over 100 years since females were allowed to compete at the Olympics (National Women’s History Museum, 2016), the gendered expectations of males and females in sport have become entrenched in society, and so, until these stereotypes have been addressed, and social acceptance of women in “masculine” sport becomes normative, a culture of gender inequity in PA and SP will continue to perpetuate.
Recommendations for policy and practice
The current research suggests that an increase in media coverage of female sport is advisable to encourage females to engage in PA by targeting their beliefs about female capability in sport. Additionally, as social influence is an important factor in facilitating SP for females, seeing other women play sport promotes female SP and PA as the norm, creating an environment in which women feel supported and accepted. The findings of this study support the need for more gender-specific PA and SP programmes, with interventions developed targeting the barriers and facilitators identified in the current research.
Limitations and future research
Several limitations exist in the present research. In relation to study 1 specifically, the self-reported survey data is liable to memory and social desirability biases (Althubaiti, 2016). In study 2, all participants were students, meaning the findings may not be generalisable to all 18–24-year-olds, but only to those who also engage in third-level education. Further research is needed to test the generalisability of the current findings, with the importance of social influence on female PA and SP proposing an important line of research, potentially extending to the development of interventions based on these findings.
Conclusion
Social influences, gender stereotypes and norms are important factors in predicting the gender gap in SP and PA among young people in Ireland, where fewer females than males engage in PA. These should be targeted to reduce the gender gap and to promote PA and SP in all young people.
Download
Export To
CITE
how to cite this article
Cummins H and Byrne M. Understanding the determinants of the gender gap in physical activity and sports participation among young adults: a mixed-methods study [version 1; peer review: 1 approved with reservations]. HRB Open Res 2024, 7:13 (https://doi.org/10.12688/hrbopenres.13827.1)
NOTE: If applicable, it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in all citations of this article.
track
receive updates on this article
Track an article to receive email alerts on any updates to this article.
Open Peer Review
Current Reviewer Status:
Key to Reviewer Statuses
VIEW
HIDE
ApprovedThe paper is scientifically sound in its current form and only minor, if any, improvements are suggested
Approved with reservations
A number of small changes, sometimes more significant revisions are required to address specific details and improve the papers academic merit.
Not approvedFundamental flaws in the paper seriously undermine the findings and conclusions
Version 1
VERSION 1
PUBLISHED 07 Mar 2024
Views
18
How to cite this report:
Knoester C. Reviewer Report For: Understanding the determinants of the gender gap in physical activity and sports participation among young adults: a mixed-methods study [version 1; peer review: 1 approved with reservations]. HRB Open Res 2024, 7:13 (https://doi.org/10.21956/hrbopenres.15143.r40492)
The direct URL for this report is:
https://hrbopenresearch.org/articles/7-13/v1#referee-response-40492
https://hrbopenresearch.org/articles/7-13/v1#referee-response-40492
NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in this citation.
Reviewer Report 29 Jun 2024
Chris Knoester,
The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio, USA
Approved with Reservations
VIEWS 18
Comments to Authors
HRB Open Research 2024
"Understanding the determinants of the gender gap in physical activity and sports participation among young adults: a mixed-methods study"
This is an interesting and ... Continue reading
HRB Open Research 2024
"Understanding the determinants of the gender gap in physical activity and sports participation among young adults: a mixed-methods study"
This is an interesting and ... Continue reading
CITE
HOW TO CITE THIS REPORT
Knoester C. Reviewer Report For: Understanding the determinants of the gender gap in physical activity and sports participation among young adults: a mixed-methods study [version 1; peer review: 1 approved with reservations]. HRB Open Res 2024, 7:13 (https://doi.org/10.21956/hrbopenres.15143.r40492)
The direct URL for this report is:
https://hrbopenresearch.org/articles/7-13/v1#referee-response-40492
https://hrbopenresearch.org/articles/7-13/v1#referee-response-40492
NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in all citations of this article.
Alongside their report, reviewers assign a status to the article:
Approved - the paper is scientifically sound in its current form and only minor, if any, improvements are suggested
Approved with reservations -
A number of small changes, sometimes more significant revisions are required to address specific details and improve the papers academic merit.
Not approved - fundamental flaws in the paper seriously undermine the findings and conclusions
Competing Interests Policy
Provide sufficient details of any financial or non-financial competing interests to enable users to assess whether your comments might lead a reasonable person to question your impartiality. Consider the following examples, but note that this is not an exhaustive list:
Examples of 'Non-Financial Competing Interests'
- Within the past 4 years, you have held joint grants, published or collaborated with any of the authors of the selected paper.
- You have a close personal relationship (e.g. parent, spouse, sibling, or domestic partner) with any of the authors.
- You are a close professional associate of any of the authors (e.g. scientific mentor, recent student).
- You work at the same institute as any of the authors.
- You hope/expect to benefit (e.g. favour or employment) as a result of your submission.
- You are an Editor for the journal in which the article is published.
Examples of 'Financial Competing Interests'
- You expect to receive, or in the past 4 years have received, any of the following from any commercial organisation that may gain financially from your submission: a salary, fees, funding, reimbursements.
- You expect to receive, or in the past 4 years have received, shared grant support or other funding with any of the authors.
- You hold, or are currently applying for, any patents or significant stocks/shares relating to the subject matter of the paper you are commenting on.
Stay Updated
Sign up for content alerts and receive a weekly or monthly email with all newly published articles
Register with HRB Open Research
Already registered? Sign in
Comments on this article Comments (0)