Display options
Cite
Wangberg SC, Sørensen T, Andreassen HK. Using the Internet to Support Exercise and Diet: A Stratified Norwegian Survey. Med 2 0. 2015;4(2):e3doi: 10.2196/med20.4116.
Wangberg, S. C., Sørensen, T., & Andreassen, H. K. (2015). Using the Internet to Support Exercise and Diet: A Stratified Norwegian Survey. Medicine 2.0, 4(2), e3. https://doi.org/10.2196/med20.4116
Wangberg, Silje C, et al. "Using the Internet to Support Exercise and Diet: A Stratified Norwegian Survey." Medicine 2.0 vol. 4,2 (2015): e3. doi: https://doi.org/10.2196/med20.4116
Wangberg SC, Sørensen T, Andreassen HK. Using the Internet to Support Exercise and Diet: A Stratified Norwegian Survey. Med 2 0. 2015 Aug 26;4(2):e3. doi: 10.2196/med20.4116. PMID: 26310277; PMCID: PMC4705024.
Copy Download .nbib Format: NLM
Share it on

Med 2 0. 2015 Aug 26;4(2):e3. doi: 10.2196/med20.4116.

Using the Internet to Support Exercise and Diet: A Stratified Norwegian Survey.

Medicine 2.0

Silje C Wangberg, Tove Sørensen, Hege K Andreassen

Affiliations

  1. Department of Health and Society, Narvik University College, Narvik, Norway. [email protected].

PMID: 26310277 PMCID: PMC4705024 DOI: 10.2196/med20.4116

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Internet is used for a variety of health related purposes. Use differs and has differential effects on health according to socioeconomic status.

OBJECTIVE: We investigated to what extent the Norwegian population use the Internet to support exercise and diet, what kind of services they use, and whether there are social disparities in use. We expected to find differences according to educational attainment.

METHODS: In November 2013 we surveyed a stratified sample of 2196 persons drawn from a Web panel of about 50,000 Norwegians over 15 years of age. The questionnaire included questions about using the Internet, including social network sites (SNS), or mobile apps in relation to exercise or diet, as well as background information about education, body image, and health. The survey email was opened by 1187 respondents (54%). Of these, 89 did not click on the survey hyperlink (declined to participate), while another 70 did not complete the survey. The final sample size is thus 1028 (87% response rate). Compared to the Norwegian census the sample had a slight under-representation of respondents under the age of 30 and with low education. The data was weighted accordingly before analyses.

RESULTS: Sixty-nine percent of women and 53% of men had read about exercise or diet on the Internet (χ(2)= 25.6, P<.001). More people with higher education (71%, χ(2)=19.1, P<.001), reported this. The same gender difference was found for using Internet-based interventions with 20% of women compared to14% of men reporting having used these interventions (χ(2)=7.9, P= .005), for having posted a status about exercise or diet on Facebook or other SNS (23% vs 12%, χ(2)=18.8, P<.001), and for having kept an online exercise or diet journal (21% vs 15%, χ(2)=7.0, P=.008). Evaluations of own physical appearance accounted for some of the gender differences in using online exercise or diet journals. Seven percent of the total sample reported having used electronic communication to ask professionals about exercise or diet, while a few more had discussed online with peers (10%). Asking professionals online was more common amongst those with only primary education (13%, χ(2)<10.5, P=.005). 

CONCLUSIONS: Gender and education are related to how the Internet is used to support health behaviors. We should be aware of the potential role of the Internet in accelerating social disparities in health, and continue to monitor population use. For Internet- and mobile-based interventions to support health behaviors, this study provides information relevant to tailoring of delivery media and components to user.

Keywords: Health Behaviors; Health Literacy; Internet; Social Disparities

References

  1. Psychol Rev. 1977 Mar;84(2):191-215 - PubMed
  2. J Health Econ. 2010 Jan;29(1):1-28 - PubMed
  3. J Med Internet Res. 2004 Nov 10;6(4):e40 - PubMed
  4. J Med Internet Res. 2004 Sep 03;6(3):e25 - PubMed
  5. Health Promot Int. 2008 Mar;23(1):70-7 - PubMed
  6. J Med Internet Res. 2011 Nov 03;13(4):e90 - PubMed
  7. Fam Community Health. 2010 Apr-Jun;33(2):152-62 - PubMed
  8. Health Psychol. 2009 Nov;28(6):690-701 - PubMed
  9. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2013 Jul 10;(7):CD007078 - PubMed
  10. J Med Internet Res. 2010 Feb 17;12(1):e4 - PubMed
  11. J Med Internet Res. 2013 Feb 11;15(2):e27 - PubMed
  12. J Med Internet Res. 2008 Nov 17;10(4):e42 - PubMed
  13. J Health Commun. 1998 Jan-Mar;3(1):71-9 - PubMed
  14. BMJ Open. 2013 Aug 19;3(8):e003320 - PubMed
  15. Psychol Monogr. 1966;80(1):1-28 - PubMed
  16. J Health Econ. 2013 Mar;32(2):480-5 - PubMed
  17. J Med Internet Res. 2006 Jun 16;8(2):e9 - PubMed
  18. J Med Internet Res. 2014 Jul 16;16(7):e172 - PubMed
  19. J Med Internet Res. 2011 Dec 23;13(4):e125 - PubMed
  20. Health Mark Q. 2008;25(1-2):175-203 - PubMed
  21. Curr Atheroscler Rep. 2014 Oct;16(10):442 - PubMed
  22. J Health Psychol. 2003 Jan;8(1):7-23 - PubMed
  23. Health Info Libr J. 2011 Sep;28(3):200-9 - PubMed
  24. J Med Internet Res. 2013 Aug 01;15(8):e148 - PubMed
  25. Int J Med Inform. 2006 Jan;75(1):8-28 - PubMed
  26. J Med Internet Res. 2007 Sep 30;9(3):e26 - PubMed
  27. Health Info Libr J. 2013 Dec;30(4):278-93 - PubMed
  28. Am J Public Health. 1999 Sep;89(9):1322-7 - PubMed
  29. Lancet. 2012 Sep 15;380(9846):1011-29 - PubMed
  30. Scand J Caring Sci. 2009 Dec;23(4):691-6 - PubMed
  31. Patient Educ Couns. 2006 May;61(2):173-90 - PubMed
  32. J Med Internet Res. 2014 Feb 19;16(2):e58 - PubMed

Publication Types