• Humans evolved to rely on daily movement, but modern life is increasingly sedentary. Reintegrating physical activity into social environments means designing interventions that match how we’re wired to live and thrive.
• Identity-aligned fitness programs help activate shared group norms, separating exercise from exclusionary “fitness culture” and making it more about social belonging.
• Embedding physical activity into daily routines reduces common psychological and logistical friction points that prevent individuals from participating or rejoining when they drop out.
• Intrinsic motivation is more effective at fostering long-term behavior change than external goals and incentives. Tying community fitness programs to internal drivers can help promote sustained participation.

Exercise is often pitched as a healthy lifestyle add-on, like drinking a kale smoothie or spending a mindful minute away from the computer. But unlike these other behaviors, exercise is not just a one-off activity we should squeeze in when we want a little boost; it’s essential to our well-being. In fact, human physiology has evolved to depend on regular movement.³ 

Unfortunately, our modern lifestyle is a far cry from the exercise-heavy lives of our early ancestors. Over the past two centuries alone, technological and social changes have reduced overall physical activity levels by about 30 minutes daily.⁵ When we zoom out even further, there’s a shocking contrast between how humans worked and lived for most of our history and today’s sedentary routines. Among remaining hunter-gatherer communities like the Hadza population in northern Tanzania, men and women log more physical activity in a single day than Americans typically get in an entire week.³ Perhaps unsurprisingly, the Hadza also have very low rates of heart disease, diabetes, and other conditions that have reached epidemic status in much of the modern world. Today, physical inactivity is the fourth leading risk factor for global mortality, estimated to cause 6% of all deaths.⁴ 

The good news is that boosting regular physical activity is one of the most promising methods of health promotion.⁶ Not only is it incredibly effective, it’s also nonpharmacological, noninvasive, and cost-effective, with virtually zero negative side effects for individuals. So, why do only a small percentage of adults get the recommended amount of regular exercise, let alone make use of affordable and widely available community fitness programs? 

According to many researchers, lack of participation shouldn’t be attributed to a lack of knowledge about the benefits of exercise—there has been very little increase in exercise rates over the last decade despite various educational intervention programs.⁶ Rather, it has more to do with motivation, self-regulatory mechanisms, and social norms. Tackling these issues from a behavioral science perspective is key to weaving fitness back into the fabric of regular community life, so we can all benefit from the group exercise that has helped communities thrive since the early days of human existence.

When people don’t see community fitness programs as activities for people “like them,” no amount of access or information will drive them to participate. In fact, research shows that making environmental changes to increase physical activity—like improving parks or sports fields—is not very effective unless they are also socially attractive.² Whether rooted in cultural values, gender norms, or societal expectations, social identities can act as powerful gatekeepers to participation, and this can mean that certain groups fail to benefit from local programs. The core issue here is identity misalignment: if a fitness space doesn’t reflect a person’s sense of who they are, it’s unlikely to draw their interest.

The Mismatch Between Social Identities and Fitness Culture

Much of our identities arise from broader social affiliations. According to social identity theory, people often incorporate characteristics of their social groups into their own sense of self.⁸ It follows that the groups people belong to are often powerful predictors of individual physical activity behavior. People who belong to groups with a strong “exercise identity”—meaning they generally see themselves as the kind of people who exercise regularly—are more likely to engage in regular fitness.⁷ On the other hand, those from groups that don’t see fitness as a part of their social narrative can feel excluded. For example, among one urban Aboriginal population in Melbourne, exercise is often viewed as something done individually, so engaging in fitness is seen as disconnecting oneself from the community.¹¹

Identity Activation Can Subtly Shape Health Behavior

Interestingly, it’s not just about the groups people belong to, but which identities are activated when individuals are making decisions about whether or not to participate in fitness programs. Research shows that people are more likely to engage in healthy behaviors when these behaviors align with a salient social identity. For example, young adults are less likely to reduce their alcohol consumption when told to focus on their social identity as “university students” than when asked to focus on their identity as “British people.”⁹ This highlights how behavior change can depend on which social identities are front-of-mind when individuals are making decisions. When programs activate exclusive identities—for example, they’re framed around athleticism or high-performance training—people who don’t identify as “athletes” or “exercisers” can feel out of place.

When the barrier is at the group level rather than the individual level, interventions focused on education, self-monitoring, or goal-setting are likely to struggle. Some researchers suggest that this focus on the individual may be why behavior change models have shown mixed results at boosting exercise engagement, despite careful implementation.⁸ Before targeting individual motivational barriers, we must create a foundational sense of social identity alignment with community fitness.

If we can link community exercise programs to shared identities—like being a sports fan, senior resident, or parent—community fitness can feel more natural and less like an activity exclusively for “exercise identities.” This sense of connection not only encourages people to give exercise programs a chance but also reinforces healthy social norms that support long-term participation.

Shared Identities Reinforce Healthy Social Norms

Research across multiple studies shows that people are more likely to exercise with others who share a specific social category, such as those of the same age, sex, physical appearance, or physical condition.⁸ What’s more, when people perceive that they are similar to other group members—for example, “other women my age” or “seniors with the same health condition as me”—they tend to display greater levels of adherence to exercise programs. This occurs for a couple of reasons. First, people naturally seek out and create in-groups in exercise settings, and the opportunity to exercise with these in-groups (rather than out-groups) is a significant determinant of continued fitness participation.

Second, social norms tell people how to act in certain situations by defining what is generally considered acceptable behavior within a group. When someone strongly aligns with a group, they’re more likely to adopt the norms of that group because it reinforces their sense of belonging. So, when individual participants feel that other members of their group are engaging in community exercise, they are more likely to follow suit by aligning their own attitudes and behaviors with group norms.² 

This isn’t just theoretical; it really works. Interventions that support group cohesion and collective identity often outperform individual-based programs.⁸ In practice, this might mean framing programs in a way that activates common group identities. For example, instead of generic “fitness for all” messaging, community organizations could use messaging that highlights opportunities to connect with others who share similar interests, like “walk and talk with other new parents,” “learn low-impact activities for managing joint pain,” or “drop-in pickleball for new community members.” Not only do these messages signal a sense of group belonging, but they also tap into our human desire for social connection—framing fitness programs as an opportunity to socialize, not just exercise.

Identity-Aligned Community Programs in Practice

One powerful real-world example is the Football Fans in Training (FFIT) program, a weight management program designed to help men adopt healthier lifestyles. This 12-week program offered at Scottish Professional Football League clubs is targeted specifically at overweight male football fans. Participants share a very specific social identity, ensuring a strong social incentive to continue their participation. A recent randomized trial of this program revealed a 4.36% difference in percentage weight loss between FFIT program members and a control group.¹⁰ Similar exercise programs established around the world include:⁸

• Baby Bootcamps: Fitness programs designed for parents with infants aimed at helping new parents exercise postpartum, often incorporating the baby into the workout.
• Karate 4 Kids: Programs teaching kids martial arts in a safe and non-competitive environment, in which children are typically divided into classes by age group.
• Swimming for Seniors: Aquatic fitness programs designed specifically for older adults, providing low-impact exercises to improve flexibility, balance, coordination, and strength.

Participants in these programs are not only motivated by health goals, but group solidarity, in-group pride, and social norms that make the activity feel not only socially acceptable, but expected.

Even when people want to exercise and are supported by social norms, real-life responsibilities, logistical issues, social demands, and other friction points can make participation difficult. Whether these barriers prompt early drop-out from programs or prevent people from joining altogether, they are common issues that cannot be solved by access alone. 

For example, in a study among Indigenous Australians, logistical issues were revealed as major barriers to participation in a rural and regional community exercise program designed to reduce health disparities.¹¹ More specifically, many participants mentioned having to travel away from the community frequently for work and social obligations, which made it nearly impossible to engage in the regular program. In another study among low-income groups in the UK, participants mentioned similar barriers, this time regarding issues with timing and childcare rather than accessibility.¹² 

Barriers to Program Participation Reduce Perceived Behavioral Control

These barriers have a lot to do with perceived behavioral control, or a person’s belief in their ability to engage in a specific behavior. Perceived behavioral control is a key element of the Theory of Planned Behavior, which suggests that someone’s behavior is dependent on three things: subjective norms (as we tackled in the first section), their attitudes around the behavior (we’ll discuss this in the last section), and the amount of control they feel that they have over the behavior. The latter is lacking when community programs feel disconnected from daily life, allowing for busy routines to get in the way. Even one missed session due to a scheduling hiccup can derail someone’s sense of self-efficacy and dampen their motivation to continue. The research is clear: when perceived behavioral control is low, intentions to exercise don’t translate into action.¹³ 

Beyond this, many people also struggle with a perceived lack of competence and low self-confidence when it comes to participating in community programs, suggesting that it’s not just external barriers that can limit our sense of self-control, but internal ones, too.¹² Programs that target exercisers who already know what they’re doing can alienate those new to certain sports, activities, or fitness in general. This all points to a key need for frictionless entry points, so programs fit the rhythms of everyday life rather than working against them.

When activity is integrated into everyday environments and routines, participation requires less effort to start and maintain. The result? Community members are less likely to run into self-efficacy barriers and more likely to follow through on their exercise intentions.¹³ Removing friction—whether it’s rooted in scheduling issues or unfamiliar spaces—is key in extending this sense of control to community members. The goal is to make fitness feel like a natural extension of everyday life, rather than a standalone activity that takes place behind the doors of a gym. Let’s explore what this might look like in practice.

How to Work Low-Friction Fitness into Daily Routines

There are several ways city planners and community organizations could embed activity into the flow of daily life. For instance, shared use, sometimes called “joint use,” is a setup where government entities, nonprofit organizations, or even private companies agree to broaden access to their property for community use.¹⁴ Promoting shared-use agreements with existing facilities can help increase access to physical activity opportunities in the spaces where community members already spend their time, such as school grounds, workplaces, and churches. Many leading public health authorities, including the CDC and the American Academy of Pediatrics, recommend shared use as a promising strategy to address physical inactivity.¹⁴ This solution also makes financial sense, allowing communities to use existing infrastructure rather than building new community centers or parks. 

Beyond reducing barriers to access, community fitness programs can reduce scheduling and self-confidence barriers by normalizing activity within everyday routines. For instance, walking programs for families could start at school pick-up, local libraries could offer beginner’s drop-in yoga during storytime, and churches could offer low-pressure pickup sports following Sunday service. As another example, one study found success when embedding informal physical activity (rather than structured sports) into existing peer-to-peer mental health support groups.¹⁵ Participants specifically spoke highly of the drop-in nature of the program and liked that they didn’t need a high level of fitness to participate. Generally, formats that allow for drop-in and drop-out are more accommodating than inflexible schedules, ensuring that community members don’t feel discouraged from rejoining when life inevitably gets in the way.

Removing barriers to entry may also encourage people to participate in more demanding forms of physical activity. When it’s easier to show up, those first few steps can create a sense of psychological momentum that reassures people of their capabilities, making more challenging activities seem more approachable. At the same time, as participants begin investing effort into a fitness program, the activity itself can start to feel more valuable, reinforcing their commitment and encouraging higher levels of effort.²³ This is a positive spin on the sunk cost effect or commitment bias: “I’ve already put in the effort to show up, so I might as well keep going.” Leveraging these biases to get a foot in the door could increase participation in more challenging activities that may initially seem intimidating.

Frictionless Fitness Around the World

Fitness is being increasingly embedded into daily routines and familiar spaces in communities everywhere. Many European communities, especially those in Sweden and Norway, allow people to borrow sports and exercise equipment free of charge from local lending libraries, just like borrowing books.¹⁶ In Hong Kong, a Zero-Time Exercise (ZTEx) program helps integrate simple, equipment-free strength- and stamina-enhancing physical activity into daily life.¹⁷ Ireland is currently piloting a program in which home care assistants integrate physical activity prompts into routine visits with older adult patients.¹⁸ And in Girona, Spain, the government promotes community fitness with Healthy Itineraries, which are free physical exercise sessions led by expert professionals in the natural and urban environment of the city. Programs like these can inspire similar fitness interventions in community environments around the world.

Even when exercise feels normal and accessible, community members can still struggle to follow through because of motivational barriers. When motivation is built on a sense of obligation or delayed rewards, it fizzles out quickly. In fact, studies show that just giving people early feedback on their exercise habits is largely ineffective at promoting sustained exercise.² When exercise is presented as a health obligation or a means to an end, the anticipated future rewards can feel too far off for these rewards to be sufficiently motivating. On top of this, individuals often engage in hyperbolic discounting, in which they prefer smaller, more immediate rewards than larger, delayed ones. Long-term fitness goals often pale in comparison to immediate rewards like skipping Pilates for a rest day on the couch.

Long-Term Motivation Requires Intrinsic Motivation

While long-term goals like weight loss or blood pressure management might initiate action, tapping into even more meaningful internal motives is essential for tying the act of exercising to immediate rewards. Self-determination theory explains how people are often more driven by internal rewards than external outcomes.¹⁹ These internal rewards provide what’s called intrinsic motivation, a form of motivation derived from the enjoyment of the behavior itself rather than a separate consequence of the behavior. Many people are intrinsically motivated to exercise because exercise itself can be fun, challenging, and stress-relieving. Adding an external incentive, like financial rewards or performance pressure, can actually crowd out these internal drivers.

How Exercise Programs Crowd Out Intrinsic Motivation

Interestingly, one’s environment can either promote or thwart their intrinsic motivation. When the social environment promotes autonomy (feeling in control), relatedness (feeling connected to others), and competence (feeling capable)—three essential psychological needs outlined by self-determination theory—individuals are more likely to feel intrinsically motivated to engage in beneficial behavior. On the other hand, environments that do not adequately support these needs cause individuals to rely on short-lived external motivation. 

For instance, interviews with seniors receiving a community-based exercise intervention in Korea revealed that many participants did not exercise because their needs for autonomy and competence went unmet.²⁰ Initially, participants were largely encouraged to participate because the Medicaid case manager told them to. However, over time, many reported feeling pressured by the manager to exercise, despite lacking confidence in their abilities or simply disliking exercise altogether, suggesting that this external regulation did not lead to meaningful internal drive. Case studies like these illustrate the importance of designing community exercise interventions that foster intrinsic motivation.

Interventions based on self-determination theory aim to help individuals find more autonomous forms of motivation. To do this, fitness programs must move beyond “good for you” messaging to make activities themselves seem fun, social, and otherwise inherently rewarding. The great benefit of exercise—unlike some other health behaviors like wearing a seat belt or brushing one’s teeth—is that it can be incredibly intrinsically satisfying.¹⁹ Designing programs and framing promotional messages around enjoyment is much easier when people already have a natural interest in activities like sports, dance, socializing, or spending time outside. While health-related drivers may initially motivate community members to get involved in programs, it’s the fun and social aspects of the activities that keep people coming back.¹² 

Putting the Community in Community Fitness

Helping people develop the intrinsic motivation to exercise might be as simple as designing programs around enjoyable community activities rather than a focus on fitness. This removes the pressure, stress, and guilt that can thwart motivation when health-related goals seem too far off, and ensures participants enjoy immediately reinforcing feel-good rewards for participating. For instance, communities could promote activities like group dog walks, community gardening sessions, dance nights, or volunteer work—where physical activity is a natural byproduct rather than the main event. 

The Green Gym program in the UK is an excellent example. In this program, participants engage in a variety of inclusive activities ranging from light to vigorous gardening and conservation work. Members have a chance to learn new skills, socialize, and help the community, all while getting active as a happy side effect. Similarly, the global Parkrun program is a community-led event that provides free weekly runs in local spaces all around the world. The event is run by volunteers, and runners themselves are encouraged to volunteer regularly to help keep the event going. Importantly, Parkruns are positioned as friendly, fully inclusive, non-competitive activities focused on fun and socialization rather than just exercise.

The difference between programs like these and fitness-based community programs is that they make physical activity feel like something people want to do, rather than something they should do. These programs support all three psychological needs outlined by self-determination theory: autonomy through flexible participation, competence through inclusive activity, and relatedness through shared community experiences. This trifecta is key to building strong intrinsic motivation that keeps community members coming back again and again.

While community fitness programs can boost public health, encouraging sustained participation depends heavily on context. For one, motivation and identity alignment are not one-size-fits-all. Intrinsic drivers are highly personal, and messaging that might drive someone to participate—whether it’s a sense of belonging or promise of enjoyment—may not resonate with someone else.²¹ Making assumptions about the groups people identify with or what they find fun or personally meaningful risks alienating those who don’t fit the dominant narrative. Programs must be flexible, offer choice, and reflect a range of social identities in order to provide autonomous exercise motivation and encourage self-directed participation.

Second, targeting psychological barriers and friction points isn’t the same as creating true access. Inclusive, approachable physical activity programs still struggle to engage community members when structural barriers—like caregiving responsibilities, transportation issues, or safety concerns—remain unaddressed.²² These challenges tend to disproportionately affect marginalized communities, requiring systemic solutions rather than a sole focus on individual decision-making. Overall, fostering participation in community fitness requires a nuanced understanding of the context in which these interventions are being applied, which often means developing interventions alongside input from community members.

By reshaping how community fitness is perceived and experienced, exercise can once again become a cornerstone of community life, promoting health, social connection, and a renewed sense of belonging. But to realize this potential and encourage consistent participation, exercise interventions must move beyond educational campaigns and one-size-fits-all programs. This means designing opportunities that align with the social identities and internal motivations of individual community members, while fitting seamlessly into familiar routines and environments. Overall, creating flexible programs that feel truly inclusive and frictionless can help make physical activity programs feel more like opportunities than obligations.

When communities around the world reimagine movement as something that feels natural, social, and integrated with everyday life, we move closer to a world where healthy activity is a standard rather than a privilege. In recent years, how people approach fitness is trending toward a more holistic community-centric focus. City planners, public health officials, and community nonprofits around the globe are working to support this shift by creating environments and programs where movement happens organically, from redesigning pedestrian infrastructure to launching community-wide initiatives like casual walking clubs and programs tailored to marginalized groups. Continuing this momentum is crucial to improving public wellness on a large scale.

Encouraging participation in community fitness programs isn’t just about improving access to physical activity places, but about understanding human behavior. At The Decision Lab, we help organizations apply behavioral science to design interventions that work in real-world settings, whether it means promoting healthy habit change or crafting high-impact public policies. If you’re working to build community fitness programs that have a real impact on public health and well-being, let’s talk.

Designing a Cutting-Edge Health App to Get Canadians Moving

As we touched on in the above article, there are countless structural and behavioral reasons people often struggle to exercise regularly, let alone participate in community-led programs. To better understand these various barriers, TDL conducted a large survey on health app users, revealing impactful insights about what motivates users—and what derails their fitness goals.

Getting Back in the Gym: A Behavioral Science Perspective

Driving people to exercise is about more than matching fitness needs with effective programs. When people are trying to return to the gym after a long break, they’re working against countless psychological and physical obstacles. Fortunately, coaches are in an optimal position to help individuals build sustainable exercise habits with low-friction entry points, incremental rewards, and other techniques that facilitate lasting behavior change.

1. World Health Organization. (2024, June 26). Nearly 1.8 billion adults at risk of disease from not doing enough physical activity. World Health Organization. https://www.who.int/news/item/26-06-2024-nearly-1.8-billion-adults-at-risk-of-disease-from-not-doing-enough-physical-activity
2. Gormley, L., Belton, C. A., Lunn, P. D., & Robertson, D. A. (2022). Interventions to increase physical activity: An analysis of candidate behavioural mechanisms. Preventive medicine reports, 28, 101880. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pmedr.2022.101880 
3. Pontzer, H. (2019, January 1). Humans Evolved to Exercise. Scientific American. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/humans-evolved-to-exercise/ 
4. Park, J. H., Moon, J. H., Kim, H. J., Kong, M. H., & Oh, Y. H. (2020). Sedentary Lifestyle: Overview of Updated Evidence of Potential Health Risks. Korean journal of family medicine, 41(6), 365–373. https://doi.org/10.4082/kjfm.20.0165 
5. Yegian, A. K., Heymsfield, S. B., & Lieberman, D. E. (2021). Historical body temperature records as a population-level ‘thermometer’ of physical activity in the United States. Current Biology, 31(20), R1375-R1376. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2021.09.014 
6. Lachman, M. E., Lipsitz, L., Lubben, J., & Jette, A. M. (2018). When Adults Don’t Exercise: Behavioral Strategies to Increase Physical Activity in Sedentary Middle-Aged and Older Adults. Innovation in Aging, 2(1). https://doi.org/10.1093/geroni/igy007 
7. Golaszewski, N. M., LaCroix, A. Z., Hooker, S. P., & Bartholomew, J. B. (2022). Group exercise membership is associated with forms of social support, exercise identity, and amount of physical activity. International journal of sport and exercise psychology, 20(2), 630–643. https://doi.org/10.1080/1612197x.2021.1891121 
8. Stevens, M., Rees, T., Coffee, P., Steffens, N. K., Haslam, S. A., & Polman, R. (2017). A Social Identity Approach to Understanding and Promoting Physical Activity. Sports medicine (Auckland, N.Z.), 47(10), 1911–1918. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40279-017-0720-4 
9. Tarrant, M., & Butler, K. (2011). Effects of self-categorization on orientation towards health. British Journal of Social Psychology, 50(1), 121-139. https://doi.org/10.1348/014466610X511645 
10. Hunt, K., Wyke, S., Gray, C. M., Anderson, A. S., Brady, A., Bunn, C., Donnan, P. T., Fenwick, E., Grieve, E., Leishman, J., Miller, E., Mutrie, N., Rauchhaus, P., White, A., & Treweek, S. (2014). A gender-sensitised weight loss and healthy living programme for overweight and obese men delivered by Scottish Premier League football clubs (FFIT): a pragmatic randomised controlled trial. Lancet (London, England), 383(9924), 1211–1221. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(13)62420-4 
11. Sushames, A., Engelberg, T., & Gebel, K. (2017). Perceived barriers and enablers to participation in a community-tailored physical activity program with Indigenous Australians in a regional and rural setting: a qualitative study. International Journal for Equity in Health, 16(1), 172. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12939-017-0664-1 
12. Withall, J., Jago, R., & Fox, K. R. (2011). Why some do but most don't. Barriers and enablers to engaging low-income groups in physical activity programmes: a mixed methods study. BMC public health, 11, 507. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2458-11-507 
13. Hagger, M. S., Cheung, M. W. -L., Ajzen, I., & Hamilton, K. (2022). Perceived behavioral control moderating effects in the theory of planned behavior: A meta-analysis. Health Psychology, 41(2), 155–167. https://doi.org/10.1037/hea0001153 
14. Safe Routes Partnership. (n.d.). Shared Use: Increasing Access to Physical Activity Opportunities. https://www.saferoutespartnership.org/sites/default/files/resource_files/shared-use-increasing-access-to-physical-activity-opportunities.pdf 
15. Healy, L. C., Benkwitz, A., McVinnie, Z., Sarkar, M., Islin, M., Brinded, A., Dodge, B., Opacic, S., Swithenbank, Z., Ranasinghe, S., Oliver, J., Karanika-Murray, M., & Nevill, M. E. (2023). Embedding Physical Activity into Community-Based Peer Support Groups for those Severely Affected by Mental Illness. International journal of environmental research and public health, 20(3), 2291. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph20032291 
16. Guillen-Royo, M., Dæhlin, E., Julsrud, T. E., & Aamaas, B. (2025). Sharing for wellbeing and sustainability. Lending sports equipment and the role of libraries in Norway. Journal of Cleaner Production, 501, 145350. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2025.145350 
17. Lai, A. Y. K., Lam, E. Y. W., Fabrizo, C., Lee, D. P. K., Wan, A. N. T., Tsang, J. S. Y., Ho, L. M., Stewart, S. M., & Lam, T. H. (2020). A Community-Based Lifestyle-Integrated Physical Activity Intervention to Enhance Physical Activity, Positive Family Communication, and Perceived Health in Deprived Families: A Cluster Randomized Controlled Trial. Frontiers in public health, 8, 434. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpubh.2020.00434 
18. Health Research Board. (2023, December 19). Care to Move – home carers prompting movement in older people at home. https://www.hrb.ie/news-stories/care-to-move-home-carers-prompting-movement-in-older-people-at-home/
19. Fortier, M. S., Duda, J. L., Guerin, E., & Teixeira, P. J. (2012). Promoting physical activity: development and testing of self-determination theory-based interventions. The international journal of behavioral nutrition and physical activity, 9, 20. https://doi.org/10.1186/1479-5868-9-20 
20. Ahn, Y. H., & Choi, J. (2021). Exercise Experience of Elderly Medicaid Beneficiaries with Osteoarthritis Based on Self-Determination Theory. Korean Journal of Health Promotion, 21(3), 117-128. https://doi.org/10.15384/kjhp.2021.21.3.117 
21. Teixeira, P. J., Carraça, E. V., Markland, D., Silva, M. N., & Ryan, R. M. (2012). Exercise, physical activity, and self-determination theory: a systematic review. The international journal of behavioral nutrition and physical activity, 9, 78. https://doi.org/10.1186/1479-5868-9-78 
22. Graham, L., Ngwa, J., Ntekim, O., Ogunlana, O., Johnson, S., Nadarajah, S., ... & Obisesan, T. O. (2023). The role of transportation in the enrollment of elderly African Americans into exercise and memory study: GEMS study. Journal of racial and ethnic health disparities, 10(4), 1837-1845. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40615-022-01367-7 
23. André, N., Grousset, M., & Audiffren, M. (2024). A Behavioral Perspective for Improving Exercise Adherence. Sports Medicine - Open, 10(1), 1-7. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40798-024-00714-8