BACKGROUND: Epidemiological studies and surveillance systems of pregnant women often rely on collection of physical activity through self-report. This systematic review identified and summarised self-reported physical activity assessments with evidence for validity and reliability among pregnant women. METHODS: Peer-reviewed articles published through 2011 were included if they assessed validity and/or reliability of an interviewer- or self-administered physical activity questionnaire or diary among pregnant women. RESULTS: We identified 15 studies, including 12 studies that assessed questionnaires and 4 studies that assessed diaries, conducted in Australia, Finland, Norway, the U.K., the U.S. and Vietnam. For questionnaires, 92% (11/12) assessed mode, all assessed frequency and/or duration and 58% (7/12) collected information on perceived intensity. All but one study (92%) assessed validity of the questionnaires. Questionnaires compared with objective measures (accelerometers, pedometers) ranged from slight to fair agreement, while comparison with other self-reported measures ranged from substantial to almost perfect agreement. Five studies (42%) assessed test-retest reliability of the questionnaires, ranging from substantial to almost perfect agreement. The four studies on diaries were all assessed for validity against objective measures, ranging from slight to substantial agreement. CONCLUSIONS: Selection of valid and reliable physical activity measures that collect information on dose (type, frequency, duration, intensity) is recommended to increase precision and accuracy in detecting associations of physical activity with maternal and fetal outcomes.
BACKGROUND: Epidemiological studies and surveillance systems of pregnant women often rely on collection of physical activity through self-report. This systematic review identified and summarised self-reported physical activity assessments with evidence for validity and reliability among pregnant women. METHODS: Peer-reviewed articles published through 2011 were included if they assessed validity and/or reliability of an interviewer- or self-administered physical activity questionnaire or diary among pregnant women. RESULTS: We identified 15 studies, including 12 studies that assessed questionnaires and 4 studies that assessed diaries, conducted in Australia, Finland, Norway, the U.K., the U.S. and Vietnam. For questionnaires, 92% (11/12) assessed mode, all assessed frequency and/or duration and 58% (7/12) collected information on perceived intensity. All but one study (92%) assessed validity of the questionnaires. Questionnaires compared with objective measures (accelerometers, pedometers) ranged from slight to fair agreement, while comparison with other self-reported measures ranged from substantial to almost perfect agreement. Five studies (42%) assessed test-retest reliability of the questionnaires, ranging from substantial to almost perfect agreement. The four studies on diaries were all assessed for validity against objective measures, ranging from slight to substantial agreement. CONCLUSIONS: Selection of valid and reliable physical activity measures that collect information on dose (type, frequency, duration, intensity) is recommended to increase precision and accuracy in detecting associations of physical activity with maternal and fetal outcomes.
Authors: Catherine McParlin; Stephen C Robson; Peter W G Tennant; Hervé Besson; Judith Rankin; Ashley J Adamson; Mark S Pearce; Ruth Bell Journal: BMC Pregnancy Childbirth Date: 2010-11-29 Impact factor: 3.007
Authors: Danielle Symons Downs; Lisa Chasan-Taber; Kelly R Evenson; Jenn Leiferman; SeonAe Yeo Journal: Res Q Exerc Sport Date: 2012-12 Impact factor: 2.500
Authors: J Meinila; A Valkama; S B Koivusalo; K Rönö; H Kautiainen; J Lindström; B Stach-Lempinen; J G Eriksson; M Erkkola Journal: Eur J Clin Nutr Date: 2017-02-01 Impact factor: 4.016
Authors: Jasper Most; Marshall St Amant; Daniel S Hsia; Abby D Altazan; Diana M Thomas; L Anne Gilmore; Porsha M Vallo; Robbie A Beyl; Eric Ravussin; Leanne M Redman Journal: J Clin Invest Date: 2019-08-01 Impact factor: 14.808
Authors: S F Ehrlich; M M Hedderson; S D Brown; B Sternfeld; L Chasan-Taber; J Feng; J Adams; J Ching; Y Crites; C P Quesenberry; A Ferrara Journal: Diabetes Metab Date: 2017-02-24 Impact factor: 6.041
Authors: Kelly R Evenson; Kathryn C Calhoun; Amy H Herring; David Pritchard; Fang Wen; Anne Z Steiner Journal: Fertil Steril Date: 2014-02-10 Impact factor: 7.329
Authors: L Chasan-Taber; M Silveira; K E Lynch; P Pekow; B Braun; J E Manson; C G Solomon; G Markenson Journal: Diabetes Metab Date: 2013-10-22 Impact factor: 6.041