As shown in Table 1, a total of 5242 participants were involved in this study (47.3% male and 52.7% female). The participants had a high physical inactivity rate of 44.9% (2355/5242). Logistic regression analyses of sociodemographic characteristics, exercise measurements and physical conditions were shown in Table 2. There were different patterns of characteristics within these 9 categories of exercise motivations.
Regarding the sociodemographic characteristic of gender, there was no significant difference between gender and the exercise motivations of mood regulation, increasing physical activity, weight loss and social contact. However, men were more likely to exercise for disease prevention and treatment (OR=1) than women (OR, 0.72; 95% CI, 0.64-0.80), and women were more likely to exercise for entertainment (OR, 1.29; 95% CI, 1.16-1.45, p < 0.001) than men. The sociodemographic characteristics of age were significantly associated with each exercise motivation (p < 0.001). It was interesting that participants of 20-29 years old were most likely to exercise for disease prevention and treatment (OR=1) far more than participants in other age groups were. In 863 participants of 20-29 years old, 800 (92.7%) had chosen the disease prevention and treatment. Participants of 30-39 years old (OR, 23.03; 95% CI, 17.48-30.34) were most likely to exercise for entertainment. Middle- to older-aged participants (40-49 years old (OR, 1.66; 95% CI, 1.38-1.99), 50-59 years old (OR, 1.78; 95% CI, 1.48-2.14) and 60-69 years old (OR, 1.40; 95% CI, 1.16-1.86)) were more likely to exercise for mood regulation. Compared to younger participants, elderly participants (60-69 years old) preferred to exercise for weight loss (OR, 3.65; 95% CI, 2.79-4.77) and social contact (OR, 3.40; 95% CI, 2.33-4.96). Our study found that participants with an education level of college or junior college or above (OR, 0.8; 95% CI, 0.67-0.95) were less likely to exercise for mood regulation than middle- to high-school or technical secondary school educational level. With higher education levels, more participants were likely to exercise for disease prevention and treatment. Students (OR=Ref) were most likely to exercise for disease prevention and treatment. Exercise for entertainment seemed more attractive for business service employees (OR, 11.54; 95% CI, 6.27-21.23). Workers (OR, 2.04; 95% CI, 1.29-3.21), administrative staff and professionals (OR, 1.67; 95% CI, 1.08-2.58), homemakers and retired individuals (OR, 1.58; 95% CI, 1.04-2.41) and others (OR, 1.73; 95% CI, 1.12-2.65) were more likely to exercise for mood regulation than students (OR=Ref) and business service employees (OR, 1.14; 95% CI, 0.74-1.75). Homemakers and retired participants were most likely to exercise for weight loss (OR, 4.11; 95% CI, 1.90-8.89).
Exercise characteristics included exercise frequency, exercise duration of each session, exercise duration per week and exercise intensity. In our study, 44.9% (2355/5242) of participants did not engaged in physical exercise. Mood regulation had no significant association with exercise frequency in our study, as did increasing physical activity, weight loss and social contact. Participants whose exercise motivation was disease prevention and treatment were more likely to exercise less than once a week (OR, 1.37; 95% CI, 1.10-1.71), once a week (OR, 1.41; 95% CI, 1.14-1.73) or over four times a week (OR, 1.22; 95% CI, 1.06-1.41) than they were to engage in no exercise (OR=Ref) and other exercise frequencies. For the motivation of entertainment, participants were more likely to exercise three times weekly (OR, 1.31; 95% CI, 1.05-1.64) and less likely to exercise four times weekly (OR, 0.79; 95% CI, 0.68-0.91) than they were to engage in no exercise (OR=Ref) and other exercise frequencies. In our study, exercise duration for each session or per week both showed no significant relationship with mood regulation. For disease prevention and treatment, participants were more likely to exercise less than 30 min (OR, 1.34; 95% CI, 1.07-1.67) and 30-60 min (OR, 1.25; 95% CI, 1.10-1.43) than to engage in no exercise (OR=Ref) and in over 60 min each session (OR, 1.16; 95% CI, 1.00-1.34); they also preferred to exercise 0-30 min (OR, 1.39; 95% CI, 1.14-1.69), 31-60 min (OR, 1.38; 95% CI, 1.11-1.73) and 121-240 min (OR, 1.23; 95% CI, 1.07-1.42) per week than to engage in no exercise (OR=Ref) and other duration of exercise per week. For the motivation of social contact, fewer people preferred to exercise 30-60 min each session (OR, 0.75; 95% CI, 0.58-0.95) than to engage in no exercise (OR=Ref) and other duration of exercise each session. People who exercise for entertainment were more likely to exercise 61-120 min per week (OR, 1.28; 95% CI, 1.02-1.63) than to engage in no exercise (OR=Ref) and other duration of exercise per week. Participants who exercise to increase physical activity were less likely to exercise 0-30 min per week (OR, 0.72; 95% CI, 0.54-0.97) than to engage in no exercise (OR=Ref) and other duration of exercise per week. Our research also showed no significant relationship between exercise intensity and mood regulation and other exercise motivations, such as entertainment and weight loss. Exercise intensity only showed a significant association between disease prevention and treatment (p < 0.001) and social contact (p < 0.05). Participants who exercised for the motivation of disease prevention and treatment were more likely to engage in moderate-(OR, 1.22; 95% CI, 1.07-1.39) or heavy-intensity exercise (OR, 1.48; 95% CI, 1.25-1.75). Participants who exercise for social contact were more likely to engage in mild-intensity exercise (OR, 1.35; 95% CI, 1.03-1.78).
Exercise motivations showed no significant association with abdominal obesity (p>0.05) and peptic ulcer (p>0.05), which is why these factors were not listed in Table 2. BMI only had a significant association with disease prevention and treatment and the underweight participants (OR=Ref) were most likely to choose this motivation. There was no significant association between mood regulation and all kinds of diseases in our research. Fewer participants in our study preferred to exercise for disease prevention and treatment with respect to hypertension (OR, 0.65; 95% CI, 0.55-0.77), hyperlipidemia (OR, 0.76; 95% CI, 0.60-0.96), hypercholesterolemia (OR, 0.73; 95% CI, 0.57-0.93), osteoarthropathy (OR, 0.71; 95% CI, 0.57-0.89) and cervical spondylopathy (OR, 0.76; 95% CI, 0.64-0.91). Participants with hypertension preferred to exercise to increase physical activity (OR, 1.35; 95% CI, 1.10-0.65) and lose weight (OR, 1.60; 95% CI, 1.30-1.95).
As shown in Table 3 and Table 4, only 16.64% (872/5242) were compliant with index 1, and 2.84% (149/5242) were compliant with index 2. Participants with higher education levels were more likely to meet both indexes 1 and 2. More participants with education levels of college/junior college or above (OR, 3.41; 95% CI, 1.74-6.66) and high/technical secondary school (OR, 2.13; 95% CI, 1.10-4.10) met index 1 than did participants with education levels of middle school (OR, 1.49; 95% CI, 0.77-2.87) and primary or below (OR=Ref). More participants with education levels of college/junior college or above (OR, 2.08; 95% CI, 1.58-2.75) and high /technical secondary school (OR, 1.76; 95% CI, 1.36-2.28) met index 2 than did participants with education levels of middle school (OR, 1.30; 95% CI, 1.00-1.67) and primary school (OR=Ref).