Sally B Rose1, C Raina Elley, Beverley A Lawton, Anthony C Dowell. 1. Department of Primary Health Care and General Practice, Wellington School of Medicine and Health Sciences, University of Otago, Wellington, New Zealand. Sally.Rose@otago.ac.nz
Abstract
AIM: To validate a single-item screening question for systematic use in primary health care to identify physically inactive adults, who may benefit from physical activity intervention. METHODS: The single-item physical activity screening question was administered to 1171 women aged 51-74 years recruited from 10 general practices, followed by a longer validated physical activity questionnaire (the NZPAQ-LF). Sensitivity, specificity, likelihood ratios, positive and negative predictive values, and a Kappa statistic were calculated to assess validity of the screening question. RESULTS: The sensitivity of the single-item question was 76.7% (95% confidence interval [CI] 73.5-79.7). It had high specificity (81.1%, 95%CI 77.2-84.4), and a high positive predictive value (86.7%, 95%CI 83.8-89.1). The positive likelihood ratio was 4.05 (3.33-4.93), and negative likelihood ratio was 0.29 (0.25-0.33). The Kappa statistic calculated for the single-item screening question when validated against the NZPAQ-LF was 0.56 (p<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: The single-item screening question has good sensitivity, specificity, and concordance with a validated physical activity questionnaire. The question is easy to administer and elicits a simple yes/no response from patients. This validated tool can now be used in practice to identify women who would benefit from physical activity interventions in primary care.
RCT Entities:
AIM: To validate a single-item screening question for systematic use in primary health care to identify physically inactive adults, who may benefit from physical activity intervention. METHODS: The single-item physical activity screening question was administered to 1171 women aged 51-74 years recruited from 10 general practices, followed by a longer validated physical activity questionnaire (the NZPAQ-LF). Sensitivity, specificity, likelihood ratios, positive and negative predictive values, and a Kappa statistic were calculated to assess validity of the screening question. RESULTS: The sensitivity of the single-item question was 76.7% (95% confidence interval [CI] 73.5-79.7). It had high specificity (81.1%, 95%CI 77.2-84.4), and a high positive predictive value (86.7%, 95%CI 83.8-89.1). The positive likelihood ratio was 4.05 (3.33-4.93), and negative likelihood ratio was 0.29 (0.25-0.33). The Kappa statistic calculated for the single-item screening question when validated against the NZPAQ-LF was 0.56 (p<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: The single-item screening question has good sensitivity, specificity, and concordance with a validated physical activity questionnaire. The question is easy to administer and elicits a simple yes/no response from patients. This validated tool can now be used in practice to identify women who would benefit from physical activity interventions in primary care.
Authors: Rikki Cannioto; John Lewis Etter; Lauren Beryl Guterman; Janine M Joseph; Nicholas R Gulati; Kristina L Schmitt; Michael J LaMonte; Ryan Nagy; Albina Minlikeeva; James Brian Szender; Kirsten B Moysich Journal: Cancer Epidemiol Date: 2017-05-18 Impact factor: 2.984
Authors: Rikki Cannioto; Michael J LaMonte; Harvey A Risch; Chi-Chen Hong; Lara E Sucheston-Campbell; Kevin H Eng; J Brian Szender; Jenny Chang-Claude; Barbara Schmalfeldt; Ruediger Klapdor; Emily Gower; Albina N Minlikeeva; Gary R Zirpoli; Elisa V Bandera; Andrew Berchuck; Daniel Cramer; Jennifer A Doherty; Robert P Edwards; Brooke L Fridley; Ellen L Goode; Marc T Goodman; Estrid Hogdall; Satoyo Hosono; Allan Jensen; Susan Jordan; Susanne K Kjaer; Keitaro Matsuo; Roberta B Ness; Catherine M Olsen; Sara H Olson; Celeste Leigh Pearce; Malcolm C Pike; Mary Anne Rossing; Elizabeth A Szamreta; Pamela J Thompson; Chiu-Chen Tseng; Robert A Vierkant; Penelope M Webb; Nicolas Wentzensen; Kristine G Wicklund; Stacey J Winham; Anna H Wu; Francesmary Modugno; Joellen M Schildkraut; Kathryn L Terry; Linda E Kelemen; Kirsten B Moysich Journal: Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev Date: 2016-05-06 Impact factor: 4.254
Authors: Sze Lin Yoong; Mariko Leanne Carey; Robert William Sanson-Fisher; Grant Russell; Danielle Mazza; Meredith Makeham; Christine Louise Paul; Kerry Jane Inder; Catherine D'Este Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2012-07-02 Impact factor: 2.692
Authors: Maria Giné-Garriga; Carme Martin-Borràs; Anna Puig-Ribera; Carlos Martín-Cantera; Mercè Solà; Antonio Cuesta-Vargas Journal: PLoS One Date: 2013-06-21 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Natasha E Noble; Christine L Paul; Nicole Turner; Stephen V Blunden; Christopher Oldmeadow; Heidi E Turon Journal: BMC Public Health Date: 2015-07-15 Impact factor: 3.295
Authors: Rikki Cannioto; John Lewis Etter; Michael J LaMonte; Andrew D Ray; Janine M Joseph; Emad Al Qassim; Kevin H Eng; Kirsten B Moysich Journal: Cancer Treat Res Commun Date: 2018