Jostein Steene-Johannessen1, Sigmund A Anderssen, Hidde P van der Ploeg, Ingrid J M Hendriksen, Alan E Donnelly, Søren Brage, Ulf Ekelund. 1. 1Department of Sports Medicine, Norwegian School of Sport Sciences, Oslo, NORWAY; 2VU University Medical Center, Department of Public and Occupational Health, EMGO Institute for Health and Care Research, Amsterdam, THE NETHERLANDS; 3TNO Expertise Centre Lifestyle, Leiden, THE NETHERLANDS; 4Body@Work TNO-VUmc, Research Center Physical Activity, Work and Health, Amsterdam, THE NETHERLANDS; 5Department of Physical Education and Sport Sciences, University of Limerick, Limerick, IRELAND; and 6Medical Research Council Epidemiology Unit, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UNITED KINGDOM.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Assess the agreement between commonly used self-report methods compared with objectively measured physical activity (PA) in defining the prevalence of individuals compliant with PA recommendations. METHODS: Time spent in moderate and vigorous PA (MVPA) was measured at two time points in 1713 healthy individuals from nine European countries using individually calibrated combined heart rate and movement sensing. Participants also completed the Recent Physical Activity Questionnaire (RPAQ), short form of the International Physical Activity Questionnaire (IPAQ), and short European Prospective Investigation into Cancer and Nutrition Physical Activity Questionnaire (EPIC-PAQ). Individuals were categorized as active (e.g., reporting ≥150 min of MVPA per week) or inactive, based on the information derived from the different measures. Sensitivity and specificity analyses and Kappa statistics were performed to evaluate the ability of the three PA questionnaires to correctly categorize individuals as active or inactive. RESULTS: Prevalence estimates of being sufficiently active varied significantly (P for all <0.001) between self-report measures (IPAQ 84.2% [95% confidence interval {CI}, 82.5-85.9], RPAQ 87.6% [95% CI, 85.9-89.1], EPIC-PAQ 39.9% [95% CI, 37.5-42.1] and objective measure 48.5% [95% CI, 41.6-50.9]. All self-report methods showed low or moderate sensitivity (IPAQ 20.0%, RPAQ 18.7%, and EPIC-PAQ 69.8%) to correctly classify inactive people and the agreement between objective and self-reported PA was low (ĸ = 0.07 [95% CI, 0.02-0.12], 0.12 [95% CI, 0.06-0.18], and 0.19 [95% CI, 0.13-0.24] for IPAQ, RPAQ, and EPIC-PAQ, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: The modest agreement between self-reported and objectively measured PA suggests that population levels of PA derived from self-report should be interpreted cautiously. Implementation of objective measures in large-scale cohort studies and surveillance systems is recommended.
PURPOSE: Assess the agreement between commonly used self-report methods compared with objectively measured physical activity (PA) in defining the prevalence of individuals compliant with PA recommendations. METHODS: Time spent in moderate and vigorous PA (MVPA) was measured at two time points in 1713 healthy individuals from nine European countries using individually calibrated combined heart rate and movement sensing. Participants also completed the Recent Physical Activity Questionnaire (RPAQ), short form of the International Physical Activity Questionnaire (IPAQ), and short European Prospective Investigation into Cancer and Nutrition Physical Activity Questionnaire (EPIC-PAQ). Individuals were categorized as active (e.g., reporting ≥150 min of MVPA per week) or inactive, based on the information derived from the different measures. Sensitivity and specificity analyses and Kappa statistics were performed to evaluate the ability of the three PA questionnaires to correctly categorize individuals as active or inactive. RESULTS: Prevalence estimates of being sufficiently active varied significantly (P for all <0.001) between self-report measures (IPAQ 84.2% [95% confidence interval {CI}, 82.5-85.9], RPAQ 87.6% [95% CI, 85.9-89.1], EPIC-PAQ 39.9% [95% CI, 37.5-42.1] and objective measure 48.5% [95% CI, 41.6-50.9]. All self-report methods showed low or moderate sensitivity (IPAQ 20.0%, RPAQ 18.7%, and EPIC-PAQ 69.8%) to correctly classify inactive people and the agreement between objective and self-reported PA was low (ĸ = 0.07 [95% CI, 0.02-0.12], 0.12 [95% CI, 0.06-0.18], and 0.19 [95% CI, 0.13-0.24] for IPAQ, RPAQ, and EPIC-PAQ, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: The modest agreement between self-reported and objectively measured PA suggests that population levels of PA derived from self-report should be interpreted cautiously. Implementation of objective measures in large-scale cohort studies and surveillance systems is recommended.
Authors: Richard P Troiano; David Berrigan; Kevin W Dodd; Louise C Mâsse; Timothy Tilert; Margaret McDowell Journal: Med Sci Sports Exerc Date: 2008-01 Impact factor: 5.411
Authors: E Riboli; K J Hunt; N Slimani; P Ferrari; T Norat; M Fahey; U R Charrondière; B Hémon; C Casagrande; J Vignat; K Overvad; A Tjønneland; F Clavel-Chapelon; A Thiébaut; J Wahrendorf; H Boeing; D Trichopoulos; A Trichopoulou; P Vineis; D Palli; H B Bueno-De-Mesquita; P H M Peeters; E Lund; D Engeset; C A González; A Barricarte; G Berglund; G Hallmans; N E Day; T J Key; R Kaaks; R Saracci Journal: Public Health Nutr Date: 2002-12 Impact factor: 4.022
Authors: Rajna Golubic; Anne M May; Kristin Benjaminsen Borch; Kim Overvad; Marie-Aline Charles; Maria Jose Tormo Diaz; Pilar Amiano; Domenico Palli; Elisavet Valanou; Matthaeus Vigl; Paul W Franks; Nicholas Wareham; Ulf Ekelund; Soren Brage Journal: PLoS One Date: 2014-03-25 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Jennifer A Schrack; Andrew Leroux; Jerome L Fleg; Vadim Zipunnikov; Eleanor M Simonsick; Stephanie A Studenski; Ciprian Crainiceanu; Luigi Ferrucci Journal: J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci Date: 2018-04-17 Impact factor: 6.053