SMI treatments significantly improved obesity outcomes (p < 0.001) and student satisfaction (p < 0.05) compared to other approaches.
Does Sports-Medicine Integration (SMI) treatment improve obesity outcomes and satisfaction in college students compared to other treatments?
Sports-Medicine Integration (SMI) treatment is associated with better self-reported therapeutic effects and satisfaction for obesity management among college students, though adoption remains low.
Absolute Event Rate: 0% vs 0%
Obesity among college students has become a critical public health issue, impacting their physical and mental health. Sports-Medicine Integration (SMI), an innovative intervention, shows promise for obesity treatment. This study explores the characteristics, effects, and influencing factors of SMI treatments among students, offering insights to improve health literacy and promote holistic well-being in universities. Method: This study employed the "SMI Cognitive Situation Scale" (Gao Shangshang, 2020), the "Exercise Motivation Scale" (Chen Shanping, 2013), and a self-designed "Obesity Treatment Behavior Scale" to survey 1,225 non-physical education majors from general higher education institutions. Data were analyzed using SPSS 29.0. Descriptive statistics assessed obesity prevalence, treatment behavior choices, and SMI product/service usage and costs. Cross-tabulation chi-square tests examined the relationship between obesity levels and behavior choices, while one-way ANOVA compared treatment effectiveness and satisfaction across approaches and explored the influence of SMI knowledge and internal exercise motivation on behavior choices. (1) Among 1,225 surveyed students, 590 (48.2%) had obesity issues: 26.7% slightly obese, 11.8% not severely obese, 6.8% more severely obese, and 2.9% severely obese. (2) Most students preferred physical exercise (57.5%) over SMI treatment (30.0%), no treatment (12.2%), or hospital visits (0.3%). (3) SMI product/service usage (1.58 ± 0.86) and expenditure (1.53 ± 0.82) were low. (4) Slightly obese students were most likely to choose no treatment (62.5%), while non-obese students had the highest SMI treatment adoption rate (50.1%). SMI treatment adoption showed an inverted U-shaped relationship with obesity level (excluding non-obese students), peaking at 47.2% for not severely obese students but remaining lower than for non-obese students. (5) SMI treatments significantly improved obesity outcomes (p < 0.001) and satisfaction (p < 0.05) compared to other treatments. Students choosing SMI treatments had significantly higher SMI knowledge (p < 0.001) and internal exercise motivation (p < 0.001) than others. (1) The adoption of SMI treatments among students remains low. (2) Non-obese students likely possess stronger health awareness, enabling better weight management and a greater tendency to adopt scientifically grounded and efficient SMI treatments when facing obesity issues. (3) SMI treatment has a better therapeutic effect and satisfaction level for obesity and should be promoted more. (4) Universities should enhance students' SMI literacy and internal exercise motivation through health education, empowering them to adopt more evidence-based and effective preventive and therapeutic measures for obesity.
Li et al. (Thu,) reported a other. SMI treatments significantly improved obesity outcomes (p < 0.001) and student satisfaction (p < 0.05) compared to other approaches.