Descriptive statistics regarding the sociodemographic and study characteristics of the study sample are shown in Table 1. The table shows that over half the sample were female (53.1%) and a majority were aged between 65  and < 85 years old (91.6%). Two thirds of the sample were married or living as married (59.2%), with over a third having achieved the education level of primary school (33.2%) or GCSE/Intermediate/Junior/Group certificate or equivalent (32.1%). The majority of the sample reported normal resilience levels (73.7%).

The majority of participants took part in no moderate physical activity (70.0%), with only 10.0% meeting the sufficient recommended guidelines (Table 2). Similarly, 86.1% of the sample had done no vigorous physical activity over the previous 7 days, with only 3.5% physically active. Overall, the mean BRS score was 3.53 (SD 0.74). Individuals who were not sufficiently moderately active had a lower mean BRS score of 3.51 (SD 0.74), compared to those that were moderately active (mean 3.70, SD 0.71). Those that were sufficiently vigorously active had a lower mean BRS score of 3.53 (SD 0.74), and those that were vigorously active had a mean score of 3.75 (SD 0.68).

There was a higher percentage of respondents in the high-resilience group that met the guidelines for weekly moderate physical activity (16.4%), in comparison to those reporting normal resilience (10.0%) or low resilience (6.9%), as shown in Fig. 1. Similarly, for meeting the weekly vigorous physical activity guidelines, those respondents who had higher resilience had a higher participation rate in physical activity (5.9%) than those in the normal (3.7%) or low-resilience groupings (1.8%), as shown in Fig. 2.

Summary of moderate physical activity results

Summary of vigorous physical activity results

Data were not normally distributed and therefore a Mann–Whitney test was used to compare the difference between those sufficiently active and those not in terms of mean resilience scores. Those not sufficiently moderately active scored significantly lower in resilience mean scores than those who were sufficiently moderately active (U = 633,287.00, p  < 0.001). Similarly, those not sufficiently vigorously active scored significantly lower in resilience mean scores than those who were sufficiently moderately active (U = 224,885.50, p < 0.001).

Chi-square tests were also used to examine differences in physical activity by resilience levels. The association between resilience and days of moderate physical activity was significant χ2 (8, n = 4040) = 49.89, p < 0.001, Cramer’s V = 0.08. This suggests that those who had higher resilience were more likely to have participated in moderate physical activity for a higher number of days than those who had lower resilience. Similarly, the association between resilience and days of vigorous physical activity was significant, χ2 (8, n = 4040) = 30.33,  p < 0.001, Cramer’s V = 0.06. This suggests that those who had higher resilience were more likely to to have participated in vigorous physical activity for a higher number of days than those who had lower resilience.

A subgroup analysis examining gender and age were conducted to examine differences in resilience and physical activity levels. In terms of age, the association between days sufficiently moderately active and normal resilience levels were significantly different between those 65 years < 85 years and those 85 years and older, χ2 (8, n = 4040) = 9.40, p  <  0.001, Cramer’s V = 0.06. The association between days sufficiently vigorously physical active and normal resilience levels were significantly difference between those 65 years < 85 years and those 85 years and older,, χ2 (8, n = 4040) = 2.80, p  =  0.009, Cramer’s V = 0.05. Those with lower resilience levels were less likely to take part in any moderate or vigorous physical activity levels (p < 0.001). The 65 < 85 year old group had better mean resilience scores (3.54) than the 85 + group (3.51). While the 65 < 85 year old group had a higher percentage meeting the moderate physical activity guidelines (10.5%) and vigorous physical activity (3.8%) guidelines than the 85 + age group (4.4% and 0.6% respectively).

In terms of age, there was a significant difference in sufficient moderate physical activity weekly (X2 (4, n = 4040) = 13.07,  p <  0.001, Cramer’s V = 0.057) and sufficient vigorous activity (X2 (4, n = 4040) = 9.51, p  < 0.001, Cramer’s V = 0.079), with those in the 65 < 85  age group being more active than those in the 85 years and older age group. On further analysis, those in the subgroup of 65 to < 85 (χ2 (8, n = 4040) = 45.80, p < 0.001, Cramer’s V = 0.08) with lower resilience were significantly less likely to be take part in any days of moderate physical activity on a daily/weekly basis. Similarly, 65 to < 85 (χ2 (8, n = 4040) = 28.76, p < 0.001, Cramer’s V = 0.06) with lower resilience were significantly less likely to be take part in any days being vigorously physical active on a daily/weekly basis. In the 85 years and older group there was no significant difference in terms of resilience and days moderately active (χ2 (8, n = 4040) = 8.89,  p = 0.352, Cramer’s V = 0.11) or vigorously physically active (χ2 (8, n = 4040) = 3.56, p  = 0.736, Cramer’s V = 0.07).

In terms of gender, the association between days of sufficient vigorous physical activity and normal resilience levels was significantly different between male and female respondents, χ2 (1, n = 4040)  = 35.19, p < 0.001, Cramer’s V = 0.11. The association between days of sufficiently moderate physical activity and normal resilience levels was significantly different between male and female respondents, χ2 (1, n = 4040) = 15.84,  p < 0.001, Cramer’s V = 0.07, while the association between days of sufficient moderate physical activity and high resilience levels was significantly different between male and female respondents, χ2 (1, n = 4040) = 3.96, p < 0.05, Cramer’s V = 0.11.

Males had a higher mean resilience scores (3.62) than their female counterparts (3.45), while the male group had a higher percentage meeting the moderate physical activity guidelines (12.6%) and vigorous physical activity guidelines (5.6%) than the female group (7.8% and 1.7% respectively). On further analysis, those in the subgroup of male participants (χ2 (8, n = 4040) = 23.35, p= 0.003, Cramer’s V = 0.08) with lower resilience were significantly less likely to be take part in any days being moderate physical activity on a daily/weekly basis. Similarly, males (χ2 (8, n = 4040) = 20.38, p = 0.009, Cramer’s V = 0.07) with lower resilience were significantly less likely to have taken part in any days of vigorous physical activity on a daily/weekly basis. In the female group, there was no significant difference in terms of resilience and days moderately active (χ2 (8, n = 4040) = 21.36,  p = 0.06, Cramer’s V = 0.07) or vigorously physically active (χ2 (8, n = 4040) = 12.25, p = 0.140, Cramer’s V = 0.05).

An ordinal regression revealed that an increase in moderate activity days was associated with higher levels of resilience, with an odds ratio of 0.081 (95% CI, 0.026 to 0.248), Wald χ2 (2) 19.252, p < 0.001. An increase in vigorous activity days was associated with higher levels of resilience, with an odds ratio of 0.027 (95% CI, 0.003 to 0.236), Wald χ2 (2) 10.64, p < 0.001.