Catherine L Granger1,2,3, Selina M Parry4, Linda Denehy4,5. 1. Department of Physiotherapy, The University of Melbourne, Level 7 Alan Gilbert Building, 161 Barry Street, Melbourne, Victoria, 3010, Australia. catherine.granger@unimelb.edu.au. 2. Department of Physiotherapy, Royal Melbourne Hospital, Grattan Street, Melbourne, Victoria, 3010, Australia. catherine.granger@unimelb.edu.au. 3. Institute for Breathing and Sleep, Studley Road, Heidelberg, Victoria, 3084, Australia. catherine.granger@unimelb.edu.au. 4. Department of Physiotherapy, The University of Melbourne, Level 7 Alan Gilbert Building, 161 Barry Street, Melbourne, Victoria, 3010, Australia. 5. Institute for Breathing and Sleep, Studley Road, Heidelberg, Victoria, 3084, Australia.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Physical activity (PA) is an important outcome in lung cancer; however, there is lack of consensus as to the best method for assessment. The Physical Activity Scale for the Elderly (PASE) is a commonly used questionnaire. The aim of this study was to assess the clinimetric properties of the PASE in lung cancer, specifically validity, predictive utility and clinical applicability (floor/ceiling effects, responsiveness and minimal important difference [MID]). METHODS: This is a prospective observational study. Sixty-nine participants (62 % male, median [IQR] age 68 years [61-74]) with lung cancer completed the PASE at diagnosis at 2, 4 and 6 months. Additional measures included movement sensors (steps/day), physical function, health-related quality of life, functional capacity (6-min walk distance [6MWD]), and muscle strength. Spearman's rank correlation coefficient was used to assess relationships. Linear regression analyses were conducted to determine predictive utility of the PASE for health status at 6 months. Responsiveness (effect size) and MID (distribution-based estimation) were calculated. RESULTS: The PASE was administered on 176 occasions. The PASE had moderate convergent validity with movement sensors (rho = 0.50 [95 %CI = 0.29-0.66], p < 0.005) and discriminated between participants classed as sedentary/insufficient/sufficient according to PA guidelines (p < 0.005). The PASE had fair-moderate construct validity with measures of physical function (rho = 0.57 [95 %CI = 0.46-0.66], p < 0.005), 6MWD (rho = 0.40 [95 %CI = 0.23-0.55], p < 0.005), and strength (rho = 0.37 [95 %CI = 0.18-0.54], p < 0.005). The PASE (at diagnosis) exhibited predictive utility for physical function (Bcoef = 0.35, p = 0.008) and quality of life (Bcoef = 0.35, p = 0.023) at 6 months. A small floor effect was observed (3 %); however, there was no ceiling effect. There was a small responsiveness to change (effect size = 0.23) and MID between 17 and 25 points. CONCLUSIONS: The PASE is a valid measure of self-reported PA in lung cancer.
PURPOSE: Physical activity (PA) is an important outcome in lung cancer; however, there is lack of consensus as to the best method for assessment. The Physical Activity Scale for the Elderly (PASE) is a commonly used questionnaire. The aim of this study was to assess the clinimetric properties of the PASE in lung cancer, specifically validity, predictive utility and clinical applicability (floor/ceiling effects, responsiveness and minimal important difference [MID]). METHODS: This is a prospective observational study. Sixty-nine participants (62 % male, median [IQR] age 68 years [61-74]) with lung cancer completed the PASE at diagnosis at 2, 4 and 6 months. Additional measures included movement sensors (steps/day), physical function, health-related quality of life, functional capacity (6-min walk distance [6MWD]), and muscle strength. Spearman's rank correlation coefficient was used to assess relationships. Linear regression analyses were conducted to determine predictive utility of the PASE for health status at 6 months. Responsiveness (effect size) and MID (distribution-based estimation) were calculated. RESULTS: The PASE was administered on 176 occasions. The PASE had moderate convergent validity with movement sensors (rho = 0.50 [95 %CI = 0.29-0.66], p < 0.005) and discriminated between participants classed as sedentary/insufficient/sufficient according to PA guidelines (p < 0.005). The PASE had fair-moderate construct validity with measures of physical function (rho = 0.57 [95 %CI = 0.46-0.66], p < 0.005), 6MWD (rho = 0.40 [95 %CI = 0.23-0.55], p < 0.005), and strength (rho = 0.37 [95 %CI = 0.18-0.54], p < 0.005). The PASE (at diagnosis) exhibited predictive utility for physical function (Bcoef = 0.35, p = 0.008) and quality of life (Bcoef = 0.35, p = 0.023) at 6 months. A small floor effect was observed (3 %); however, there was no ceiling effect. There was a small responsiveness to change (effect size = 0.23) and MID between 17 and 25 points. CONCLUSIONS: The PASE is a valid measure of self-reported PA in lung cancer.
Authors: Caroline B Terwee; Lidwine B Mokkink; Mireille N M van Poppel; Mai J M Chinapaw; Willem van Mechelen; Henrica C W de Vet Journal: Sports Med Date: 2010-07-01 Impact factor: 11.136
Authors: Richard A Washburn; Weimo Zhu; Edward McAuley; Michael Frogley; Stephen F Figoni Journal: Arch Phys Med Rehabil Date: 2002-02 Impact factor: 3.966
Authors: Elliot J Coups; Bernard J Park; Marc B Feinstein; Richard M Steingart; Brian L Egleston; Donna J Wilson; Jamie S Ostroff Journal: Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev Date: 2009-02-03 Impact factor: 4.254
Authors: I-Min Lee; Eric J Shiroma; Felipe Lobelo; Pekka Puska; Steven N Blair; Peter T Katzmarzyk Journal: Lancet Date: 2012-07-21 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: James F Grutsch; Patricia A Wood; Jovelyn Du-Quiton; Justin L Reynolds; Christopher G Lis; Robert D Levin; Mary Ann Daehler; Digant Gupta; Dinah Faith T Quiton; William Jm Hrushesky Journal: J Circadian Rhythms Date: 2011-05-18
Authors: Ahmad Ousmen; Célia Touraine; Nina Deliu; Francesco Cottone; Franck Bonnetain; Fabio Efficace; Anne Brédart; Caroline Mollevi; Amélie Anota Journal: Health Qual Life Outcomes Date: 2018-12-11 Impact factor: 3.186
Authors: Joeri A J Douma; Maaike B de Beaufort; Caroline S Kampshoff; Saskia Persoon; Jorine A Vermaire; Mai J Chinapaw; Willem van Mechelen; Frans Nollet; Marie José Kersten; Jan H Smit; Irma M Verdonck-de Leeuw; Teatske M Altenburg; Laurien M Buffart Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2019-12-09 Impact factor: 3.603
Authors: Antonio Covotta; Marco Gagliardi; Anna Berardi; Giuseppe Maggi; Francesco Pierelli; Roberta Mollica; Julita Sansoni; Giovanni Galeoto Journal: Curr Gerontol Geriatr Res Date: 2018-08-08