“Let’s Talk about Physical Activity”: Understanding the Preferences of Under-Served Communities when Messaging Physical Activity Guidelines to the Public
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Participatory Workshops
2.2. Participants
2.3. Data Collection and Analysis
3. Results
3.1. Perceptions of Physical Activity
“In the first activity…the group believed the health benefits to be the most important. However, as we moved towards the latter activities…the socialisation aspects prevailed as the most important…the group all agreed that in hindsight, they did think that the socialisation/reducing loneliness was the most important benefit of physical activity, and that the health improvements were secondary.”
3.2. Preferences for Physical Activity Messaging Content
3.3. Preferences for Physical Activity Messaging Language
“I thought sedentary was some kind of rock.”(Children and young people’s workshop)
“Didn’t understand the word aerobic–associated with jumping around in a leotard.”(Older adults’ workshop)
“No idea what ‘intensities’ are.”(Adults’ workshop)
“Words like moderate, vigorous, intensity, aerobic are scary/frightening.”(Older adults’ workshop)
3.4. Preferences around the Messenger
“Celebrities were seen as the best messenger of this information. Group believes what celebrities say to them/show them. For example, if they see a celebrity being active or talking about activity, they assume that the celebrity is active themselves.”(Children and young people’s workshop)
“If it comes from someone who is really attractive, really fit, you think ‘they don’t work a real job’, you just work out all day, I have got to go to work…I don’t have an army of people doing all my chores.”(Adults’ workshop)
“Celebrities are perceived favourably. Noted that it is good to see Serena Williams in the Nike advert, and to see footballers doing work in the community around knife crime…”(Older adults’ workshop)
3.5. Preferences Around Mechanisms for Delivery
“Need to have a campaign that can be seen everywhere–in the places that people are (TV ad, posters/billboards, social media). Posters on the bus stops—‘everyone sees bus stops’. Not everyone goes to the doctors, not everyone has a TV. Need to cater for multiple audiences.”(Adults’ workshop)
“Some thought TV would be a good place to put the message (e.g., having someone being interviewed on the sofa on Good Morning TV) but others said they didn’t take much notice of TV.”(Older adults’ workshop)
4. Discussion
4.1. What Should Be Included in A Physical Activity Message?
4.2. What Language should Be Used in A Physical Activity Message?
4.3. Who Should Communicate the Physical Activity Message to the Public and How Should This Be Done?
4.4. Recommendations for Physical Activity Communication
5. Strengths and Limitations
6. Conclusions
Supplementary Materials
Author Contributions
Funding
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Department of Health and Social Care. Physical Activity Guidelines: UK Chief Medical Officers’ Report; Department of Health and Social Care: London, UK, 2019. Available online: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/physical-activity-guidelines-uk-chief-medical-officers-report (accessed on 24 February 2020).
- Department of Health and Social Care. Physical Activity Guidelines: Infographics; Department of Health and Social Care: London, UK, 2019. Available online: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/physical-activity-guidelines-infographics (accessed on 24 February 2020).
- World Health Organisation. Global Action Plan on Physical Activity 2018–2020; World Health Organisation: Geneva, Switzerland, 2018. [Google Scholar]
- Pedisic, Z.; Shrestha, N.; Kovalchik, S.; Stamatakis, E.; Liangruenrom, N.; Grgic, J.; Titze, S.; Biddle, S.J.H.; Bauman, A.E.; Oja, P. Is running associated with a lower risk of all-cause, cardiovascular and cancer mortality, and is the more the better? A systematic review and meta-analysis. Br. J. Sports Med. 2019. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Piercy, K.; Troiano, R.; Ballard, R.; Carlson, S.; Fulton, J.; Galuska, D.; George, S.; Olson, R. The Physical Activity Guidelines for Americans. JAMA 2018, 19, 2020–2028. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Sport England. Active Lives; Sport England: London, UK, 2020; Available online: https://www.sportengland.org/know-your-audience/data/active-lives (accessed on 24 February 2020).
- NHS Digital. Health Survey for England 2018: Adult’s Health-Related Behaviours; NHS Digital: Leeds, UK, 2019; Available online: https://files.digital.nhs.uk/B5/771AC5/HSE18-Adult-Health-Related-Behaviours-rep-v3.pdf (accessed on 24 February 2020).
- Rutter, H.; Cavill, N.; Bauman, A.; Bull, F. Systems approaches to global and national physical activity plans. Bull. World Health Organ. 2019, 97, 162–165. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Brennan, M.; Foster, C.E.; Timpson, C.M.; Clarke, N.; Sunyer, E.; Amlani, A.; Murphy, M.H. Active 10–A new approach to increase physical activity in inactive people in England. Prog. Cardiovasc. Dis. 2019, 62, 135–139. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Williamson, C.; Baker, G.; Mutrie, N.; Niven, A.; Kelly, P. Get the message? A scoping review of physical activity messaging. Int. J. Behav. Nutr. Phys. Act. 2020. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Bauman, A.; Smith, B.J.; Maibach, E.W.; Reger-Nash, R. Evaluation of mass media campaigns for physical activity. Eval. Progr. Plan. 2006, 29, 312–322. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Foster, C.; Kelly, P.; Reid, H.A.B.; Roberts, N.; Murtagh, E.M.; Humphreys, D.K.; Panter, J.; Milton, K. What works to promote walking at the population level? A systematic review. Br. J. Sports Med. 2018, 12, 807–812. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gordon, R.; McDermott, L.; Stead, M.; Angus, K.; Hastings, G. A Review of the Effectiveness of Social Marketing Physical Activity Interventions; National Social Marketing Centre: Sterling, UK, 2006. [Google Scholar]
- Kubacki, K.; Rundle-Thiele, S.; Lahtinen, V.; Parkinson, J. A systematic review assessing the extent of social marketing principle use in interventions targeting children (2000–2014). Young Consum. 2015, 16, 141–158. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Wakefield, M.A.; Loken, B.; Hornik, R.C. Use of mass media campaigns to change health behavior. Lancet 2010, 376, 1261–1271. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Knox, E.C.L.; Esliger, D.W.; Biddle, S.J.H.; Sherar, L. Lack of knowledge of physical activity guidelines: Can physical activity promotion campaigns do better? BMJ Open 2013, 3. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Hunter, R.F.; Tully, M.A.; Donnelly, P.; Stevenson, M.; Kee, F. Knowledge of UK physical activity guidelines: Implications for better targeted health promotion. Prev. Med. 2014, 65, 33–39. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Bennett, G.G.; Wolin, K.Y.; Puleo, E.M.; Masse, L.C.; Atienza, A.A. Awareness of national physical activity recommendations for health promotion among US adults. Med. Sci. Sports Exerc. 2009, 41, 1846–1855. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Hyde, E.T.; Omura, J.D.; Watson, K.B.; Fulton, J.E.; Carlson, S.A. Knowledge of the Adult and Youth 2008 Physical Activity Guidelines for Americans. J. Phys. Act. Health 2019, 8, 616–622. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Kay, M.A.; Carroll, D.D.; Carlson, S.A.; Fulton, J.E. Awareness and knowledge of the 2008 physical activity guidelines for Americans. J. Phys. Act. Health 2013, 11, 693–698. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- LeBlanc, A.G.; Berry, T.; Deshpande, S.; Duggan, M.; Faulkner, G.; Latimer-Cheung, A.; O’Reilly, N.; Rhodes, R.E.; Spence, J.C.; Tremblay, M. Knowledge and awareness of Canadian Physical Activity and Sedentary Behaviour Guidelines: A synthesis of existing evidence. Appl. Physiol. Nutr. Metab. 2015, 40, 716–724. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Moore, L.; Fulton, J.E.; Kruger, J.; McDivitt, J. Knowledge of physical activity guidelines among adults in the United States, HealthStyles 2003–2005. J. Phys. Act. Health 2010, 7, 141–149. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Change4Life. Available online: https://www.nhs.uk/change4life/activities (accessed on 24 February 2020).
- SportAus. Available online: https://www.sportaus.gov.au/findyour30 (accessed on 24 February 2020).
- ParticipACTION. Available online: https://www.participaction.com/en-ca/about (accessed on 24 February 2020).
- Huhman, M.E.; Potter, L.D.; Nolin, M.J.; Piesse, A.; Judkins, D.R.; Banspach, S.W.; Wong, F.L. The influence of the VERB campaign on children’s physical activity in 2002 to 2006. Am. J. Public Health 2010, 100, 638–645. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Latimer-Cheung, A.E.; Brawley, L.R.; Bassett, R.L. A systematic review of three approaches for constructing physical activity messages: What messages work and what improvements are needed? Int. J. Behav. Nutr. Phys. Act. 2010, 7, 36. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Williamson, C.; Baker, G.; Mutrie, N.; Niven, A.; Kelly, P. A Conceptual Framework for Physical Activity Messaging 2019. Available online: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/336956859_A_conceptual_framework_for_physical_activity_messaging (accessed on 24 February 2020).
- Brawley, L.R.; Latimer, A.E. Physical activity guides for Canadians: Messaging strategies, realistic expectations for change, and evaluation. Appl. Physiol. Nutr. Metab. 2007, 32, 170–184. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bergeron, C.D.; Tanner, A.H.; Friedman, D.B.; Zheng, Y.; Schrock, C.S.; Bornstein, D.B.; Segar, M.; Swift, N. Physical Activity Communication: A Scoping Review of the Literature. Health Promot. Pract. 2019, 20, 344–353. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Knowle West Media Centre. Available online: https://kwmc.org.uk/projects/bristolapproach/ (accessed on 24 February 2020).
- Gale, N.K.; Heath, G.; Cameron, E.; Rashid, S.; Redwood, S. Using the framework method for the analysis of qualitative data in multi-disciplinary health research. BMC Med. Res. Methodol. 2013, 13, 117. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Latimer-Cheung, A.E.; Rhodes, R.E.; Kho, M.E.; Tomsone, J.R.; Gainforth, H.L.; Kowalski, K.; Nasuti, G.; Perrier, M.J.; Duggan, M.; The Canadian Physical Activity Guidelines Messaging Recommendations Workgroup. Evidence-informed recommendations for constructing and disseminating messages supplementing the new Canadian Physical Activity Guidelines. BMC Public Health 2013, 13, 419. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Tversky, A.; Kahneman, D. The framing of decisions and the psychology of choice. Science 1981, 211, 453–458. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- O’Keefe, D.J.; Jensen, J.D. The Advantages of Compliance or the Disadvantages of Noncompliance? A Meta-Analytic Review of the Relative Persuasive Effectiveness of Gain-Framed and Loss-Framed Messages. Ann. Int. Commun. Assoc. 2016, 30, 1–43. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Andreasen, A. Marketing social marketing in the social change workplace. J. Public Policy Mark. 2002, 21, 3–13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fujihira, H.; Kubacki, K.; Ronto, R.; Pang, B.; Rundle-Thiele, S. Social Marketing Physical Activity Interventions Among Adults 60 Years and Older: A Systematic Review. Soc. Mark. Q. 2015, 21, 214–229. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Segar, M.; Taber, J.M.; Patrick, H.; Thai, C.L.; Oh, A. Rethinking physical activity communication: Using focus groups to understand women’s goals, values, and beliefs to improve public health. BMC Public Health 2017, 17, 462. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Noar, S.M. A 10-Year retrospective of research in health mass media campaigns: Where do we go from here? J. Health Commun. 2006, 11, 21–42. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Luecking, C.T.; Hennink-Kaminski, H.; Ihekweazu, C.; Vaughn, A.; Mazzucca, S.; Ward, S.D. Social marketing approaches to nutrition and physical activity interventions in early care and education centres: A systematic review. Obes. Res. 2017, 18, 1425–1438. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bentley, G.F.; Jago, R.; Turner, K.M. Mothers’ perceptions of the UK physical activity and sedentary behaviour guidelines for the early years (Start Active, Stay Active): A qualitative study. BMJ Open 2015, 5, e008383. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Carson, V.; Clark, M.; Berry, T.; Holt, N.L.; Latimer-Cheung, A.E. A qualitative examination of the perceptions of parents on the Canadian Sedentary Behaviour Guidelines for the early years. Int. J. Behav. Nutr. Phys. Act. 2014, 11, 65. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Faulkner, G.; White, L.; Riazi, N.; Latimer-Cheung, A.E.; Tremblay, M.S. Canadian 24-Hour Movement Guidelines for Children and Youth: Exploring the perceptions of stakeholders regarding their acceptability, barriers to uptake, and dissemination. Appl. Physiol. Nutr. Metab. 2016, 41, 303–310. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Health Education England. Available online: https://www.makingeverycontactcount.co.uk/media/1040/012-mecc-pocketbook-for-healthcare-staff-june-15.pdf (accessed on 24 February 2020).
- Berry, T.R.; Witcher, C.; Holt, N.L.; Plotnikoff, R. A Qualitative Examination of Perceptions of Physical Activity Guidelines and Preferences for Format. Health Promot. Pract. 2010, 11, 908–916. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Graham, I.D.; Logan, J.; Harrison, M.B.; Straus, S.E.; Tetroe, J.; Caswell, W.; Robinson, N. Lost in knowledge translation: Time for a map? J. Contin. Educ. Health Prof. 2006, 26, 13–24. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Berry, T.E.; Latimer-Cheung, A.E. Overcoming Challenges to Build Strong Physical Activity Promotion Messages. Am. J. Lifestyle Med. 2013, 7, 371–378. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Demographic Characteristic | Adults (n = 11) | Older Adults (n = 5) | Young People (n = 17) | Somali Women (n = 15) | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Gender | Male | 9.1 | 0 | 47.1 | 0 |
(%) | Female | 81.8 | 80.0 | 52.9 | 100.0 |
Prefer not to say | 9.1 | 20.0 | 0 | 0 | |
Age | Mean | 38.2 | 73.2 | 12.2 | 32.0 |
(years) | Range | 23–57 | 67–87 | 10–15 | 18–55 |
Prefer not to say (n) | 1 | 0 | 0 | 4 | |
Ethnicity | White British | 54.5 | 100.0 | 88.2 | 0 |
(%) | Other Ethnicity | 36.4 | 0 | 11.8 | 73.3 |
Prefer not to say | 9.1 | 0 | 0 | 26.7 |
Children and Young People (n = 17) | Adults (n = 11) | Older Adults (n = 5) | Somali Women (n = 15) | |
---|---|---|---|---|
Perceptions of Physical Activity | ||||
Interpretation and benefits of physical activity | Physical activity perceived as: Intentional physical activity: (1) sport, and (2) play and recreation. Incidental physical activity: 1. travel, and 2. chores. Benefits of physical activity included 1: (1) Enjoyment and wellbeing, (2) appearance, and (3) social connections. | Physical activity perceived as: Intentional physical activity: (1) recreational, and (2) sport. Incidental physical activity (occupational, chores, gardening). Benefits of physical activity included 1: (1) Mental health, (2) fitness, (3) weight loss, (4) social connections, (5) energy, and (6) competition. Younger participants likely to do physical activity for enjoyment, older participants for health benefit. Long-term health condition has negative impact on physical activity participation. | Physical activity perceived as: Intentional physical activity: (1) sport, and (2) recreational. Incidental physical activity (chores, gardening, shopping). Benefits of physical activity included 1: (1) Physical health, (2) wellbeing, (3) social connections, and (4) enjoyment. Social connections became more pertinent throughout conversation. Perceived as more important after a “health scare”. | Physical activity perceived as: Intentional physical activity: (1) sport, and (2) recreational. Walking seen as physical activity but to a lesser extent. Physical activity should be high intensity. Physical activity for younger generation, seen as aspirational by older generation. Benefits of physical activity included 1: (1) Physical health, (2) mental health, (3) appearance, (4) energy, (5) social connections, and (6) enjoyment. Perceived as something fun to do with children. |
Communicating Physical Activity Messages to the Public-Preferences | ||||
Content | Include: (1) The benefits of physical activity. (2) Examples of physical activity and at differing intensities. (3) Physical activity ≠ sport. (4) Humorous and/or light-hearted content. (5) Images of people having fun. (6) Statements that focus on “building up to the recommendations”. | Include: (1) Focus on positive emotions linked to physical activity (e.g., enjoyment). (2) A call to action–inspire and motivate people to be more physically active. (3) Inclusive messages that appeal to multiple audiences (i.e., those with lower levels of physical activity). (4) Statements on “building up to the recommendations”. Do not focus on the guideline per se. Needs to feel obtainable. (5) Examples of what can be done in daily life (i.e., incidental physical activity). Make people aware that they likely already do incidental physical activity. Avoid examples that sound overly strenuous. (6) The benefits of physical activity (demographic specific). (7) Images of “people like me”. | Include: (1) The benefits of physical activity. Social connections, health and enjoyment. Emotive content. (2) Realistic recommendations. Build up levels of physical activity. Don’t need to focus on the guideline per se. (3) Examples of different types of physical activity. Must account for physical limitations (e.g., chair-based activity). (4) Relatable imagery. Make people believe that physical activity is realistic for them. | Include: (1) Statements that focus on “building up to the recommendations”. Guidelines represent a target (negatively perceived). (2) Encouraging content. (3) The benefits of physical activity (“feeling good” and “time with family”). (4) Examples of what constitutes physical activity (including incidental physical activity). (5) Content that is mindful of cultural differences. (6) Relatable images and use of role models. |
Language | (1) Simple and understandable. (2) Invitational—“don’t want to be told what to do”. (3) “Chatty, friendly and encouraging” tone. “Snappy, catchy” language. (4) Avoid CMO guidelines language—academic, clinical, inaccessible. “I thought ‘sedentary’ was some kind of rock”—CMO guidelines feedback. | (1) “Some is better than none” and “Just do a little bit of anything” (2) Invitational rather than instructive (e.g., we did it, so can you). (3) Be aware of negative connotations (e.g., muscle strengthening was associated with body building). (4) Avoid CMO guidelines language—not suitable for the public. Remove jargon. Simple. (5) Similar to the C4L language. | (1) Invitational language (e.g., how are you doing? Fancy a brew?). Link with emotive content. (2) Light-hearted and humorous. Needs to be encouraging. (3) CMO guidelines— “some is better than none”. (4) Avoid CMO guidelines language—not suitable for the public. Remove jargon. Simple. “Don’t want to google the words”—Feedback on CMO guidelines. | (1) Instructive messaging may be needed for some. (2) CMO guidelines— “Some is better than none”. Needs to be encouraging and realistic. (3) Remove all jargon. “This is BBC language, not ours”—Feedback on CMO guidelines. |
Messenger | Messenger must be perceived as important and trustworthy. Messenger should also embody the promoted behavior. Messengers included:
| Messenger must be perceived as influential. Demographic specific. Relatable-“People like me, everyday people in everyday settings”. Younger adults influenced by friends and peers. Older adults influenced by authoritative figures (e.g., doctors). Messenger could look like they have benefitted from physical activity. Not celebrities—unrelatable. | Messenger must be perceived as trustworthy and caring—“A kind voice”. Someone with real-life experience. Friendship groups and community important messengers—social networks. Celebrities well perceived amongst many. Specific to demographic. Mixed perceptions of public sector professionals (trustworthiness). Need to speak in lay language. | Messenger must be relatable. Different people of different ages. Healthcare and physical activity professionals perceived as influential. |
Mechanism | Differs dependent on participant’s age:
Social media noted by all. | Different mechanisms for different audiences.
Avoid government websites. | Mechanism must be simple, primarily visual. Easy to understand. No agreement on mechanisms between group. TV perceived as useful by some, not all. | Social media seen as main mechanism–different platforms (Twitter, Facebook, Instagram, YouTube, snapchat). Including community forums. Social groups and social media useful mechanisms to disseminate. Local advertising (e.g., community groups, leaflets and newsletters, bus stops, healthcare settings). Online articles, TV and radio also mentioned. |
Benchmark Criteria | Definition 1 |
---|---|
1. Behavioral objective | Social marketing should aim to change or focus on a specific behavior of the target recipients (e.g., physical activity). |
2. Formative research | Formative research should be undertaken to learn about the target audience in order to shape the intervention/message being developed (e.g., understanding the determinants which influence physical activity behavior amongst the target recipients). |
3. Segmentation | Segmentation acknowledges that similar groups lie within heterogenous populations, and can be identified based upon their “needs” and “wants” (not necessarily based upon their demographic make-up). Information can be tailored to these segments. |
4. Exchange | It is important to consider what would motivate target recipients to voluntarily take up the desired behavior–may be intrinsic (e.g., enhanced sense of wellbeing) or extrinsic (e.g., financial incentive) motives. |
5. Marketing mix | Social marketing strategies–including communication and messaging–should consider the four Ps of marketing: product (i.e., the benefits received if undertaking the behavior), price (i.e., the opportunity costs when carrying out the behavior–pros and cons), placement (i.e., where the behavior is promoted), and promotion (i.e., the tools used to promote the behavior). |
6. Competition | It is imperative to understand what other things or behaviors are concurrently competing for the target recipients’ time and attention. Strategies can be developed to mitigate the impact of this competition. |
Recommendations |
---|
1. Work with multi-disciplinary teams to develop physical activity communications and messages. Ensure that social marketing experts are included. |
2. Develop a nuanced understanding of your target audience(s), and wherever possible work with your audience(s) to develop and tailor physical activity messages to their preferences. |
3. Carefully consider message content, including use of language and whether to include physical activity guidelines; focusing on “moving more” may seem more feasible to the public. Jargon-free language is preferred. |
4. Emphasize the benefits of physical activity and ensure that these include affective and social benefits, alongside physical and mental health benefits. Benefits will differ between audiences. |
5. Identify influential and trustworthy individuals to deliver the physical activity message. It is often important that these individuals are relatable to the public–particularly for adult audiences (i.e., “look and talk like me”. |
6. A multi-modal, visual approach is likely needed to widely disseminate the physical activity message. The preferred mechanism of delivery will differ between, and within, groups. |
7. When creating physical activity messages, be mindful about the regular conflation of physical activity, sport and exercise. Ensure that communications do not increase public confusion about what constitutes physical activity. |
8. Consider how resources could be pooled to create consistent physical activity messages to the public over a long period of time. Seek to reduce public confusion around physical activity recommendations. |
9. Whilst official documentation (e.g., CMO physical activity guidelines/infographics) may not be created for public consumption, be wary that these documents–or excerpts of–may end up in the public domain and can reinforce public perceptions of physical activity (e.g., via MECC resources). |
10. Critically reflect on current physical activity messages and campaigns in light of these findings and consider how they may be received, and interpreted, by under-served community groups. |
© 2020 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Nobles, J.; Thomas, C.; Banks Gross, Z.; Hamilton, M.; Trinder-Widdess, Z.; Speed, C.; Gibson, A.; Davies, R.; Farr, M.; Jago, R.; et al. “Let’s Talk about Physical Activity”: Understanding the Preferences of Under-Served Communities when Messaging Physical Activity Guidelines to the Public. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2020, 17, 2782. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17082782
Nobles J, Thomas C, Banks Gross Z, Hamilton M, Trinder-Widdess Z, Speed C, Gibson A, Davies R, Farr M, Jago R, et al. “Let’s Talk about Physical Activity”: Understanding the Preferences of Under-Served Communities when Messaging Physical Activity Guidelines to the Public. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. 2020; 17(8):2782. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17082782
Chicago/Turabian StyleNobles, James, Clare Thomas, Zoe Banks Gross, Malcolm Hamilton, Zoe Trinder-Widdess, Christopher Speed, Andy Gibson, Rosie Davies, Michelle Farr, Russell Jago, and et al. 2020. "“Let’s Talk about Physical Activity”: Understanding the Preferences of Under-Served Communities when Messaging Physical Activity Guidelines to the Public" International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 17, no. 8: 2782. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17082782