Kendra E Brett, Shanna Wilson, Zachary M Ferraro, Kristi B Adamo1. 1. Healthy Active Living and Obesity Research Group, Children's Hospital of Eastern Ontario Research Institute, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada K1H 8L1 School of Human Kinetics, Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada K1N 8M5 Faculty of Medicine, Department of Pediatrics, University of Ottawa, Ontario, Canada K1H 8L6. kadamo@uottawa.ca.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Physical activity (PA) research during pregnancy relies heavily on indirect/subjective measures of PA, which may be less accurate than directly measured PA. We tested whether the Pregnancy Physical Activity Questionnaire (PPAQ) could accurately estimate PA by comparing PPAQ results to directly measured PA. METHODS: In a sample of 29 women who completed the PPAQ, PA was directly measured in the second trimester of pregnancy using Actical® accelerometers (valid day = 10+ hours; 4-7 valid days). Activity variables from the PPAQ were calculated using all questions, and also by only considering the leisure time section. Women were classified as 'active' or 'non-active' using Canadian PA guidelines for adults (150 minutes moderate to vigorous PA (MVPA)/ week, bouts of 10+ minutes). Bonferroni corrections were used to adjust for multiple comparisons. Data presented as mean ± standard deviation or median (interquartile range). RESULTS: The PPAQ overestimated MVPA by 12.12 (14.34) hours/week in the combined sample, and the difference remained substantial when investigating the non-active [overestimate = 11.54 (10.10) hrs/wk] and the active women [overestimate = 16 ± 11 hrs/wk] separately. PPAQ-measured PA variables did not correlate with any of their respective Actical®-measured variables (p > 0.008). The leisure time PPAQ questions overestimated MVPA by 1 ± 3 hrs/wk, with a positive correlation between PPAQ-leisure time MVPA and Actical®-measured MVPA (r = 0.565, p = 0.001). CONCLUSION: The PPAQ significantly overestimates MVPA and does not provide an accurate estimate of PA in pregnancy. While PPAQ leisure time questions may help distinguish trends in PA, data from subjective questionnaires may result in misinterpretation of relationships between prenatal PA and health outcomes.
OBJECTIVES: Physical activity (PA) research during pregnancy relies heavily on indirect/subjective measures of PA, which may be less accurate than directly measured PA. We tested whether the Pregnancy Physical Activity Questionnaire (PPAQ) could accurately estimate PA by comparing PPAQ results to directly measured PA. METHODS: In a sample of 29 women who completed the PPAQ, PA was directly measured in the second trimester of pregnancy using Actical® accelerometers (valid day = 10+ hours; 4-7 valid days). Activity variables from the PPAQ were calculated using all questions, and also by only considering the leisure time section. Women were classified as 'active' or 'non-active' using Canadian PA guidelines for adults (150 minutes moderate to vigorous PA (MVPA)/ week, bouts of 10+ minutes). Bonferroni corrections were used to adjust for multiple comparisons. Data presented as mean ± standard deviation or median (interquartile range). RESULTS: The PPAQ overestimated MVPA by 12.12 (14.34) hours/week in the combined sample, and the difference remained substantial when investigating the non-active [overestimate = 11.54 (10.10) hrs/wk] and the active women [overestimate = 16 ± 11 hrs/wk] separately. PPAQ-measured PA variables did not correlate with any of their respective Actical®-measured variables (p > 0.008). The leisure time PPAQ questions overestimated MVPA by 1 ± 3 hrs/wk, with a positive correlation between PPAQ-leisure time MVPA and Actical®-measured MVPA (r = 0.565, p = 0.001). CONCLUSION: The PPAQ significantly overestimates MVPA and does not provide an accurate estimate of PA in pregnancy. While PPAQ leisure time questions may help distinguish trends in PA, data from subjective questionnaires may result in misinterpretation of relationships between prenatal PA and health outcomes.
Authors: Lisa Chasan-Taber; Michael D Schmidt; Dawn E Roberts; David Hosmer; Glenn Markenson; Patty S Freedson Journal: Med Sci Sports Exerc Date: 2004-10 Impact factor: 5.411
Authors: Marquis Hawkins; Lisa Chasan-Taber; Bess Marcus; Edward Stanek; Barry Braun; Joe Ciccolo; Glenn Markenson Journal: Am J Public Health Date: 2014-08-14 Impact factor: 9.308
Authors: Rebecca A Schlaff; Claudia Holzman; Kimbery S Maier; Karin A Pfeiffer; James M Pivarnik Journal: Midwifery Date: 2014-03-28 Impact factor: 2.372
Authors: Cheryce L Harrison; Russell G Thompson; Helena J Teede; Catherine B Lombard Journal: Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act Date: 2011-03-21 Impact factor: 6.457
Authors: Ruth Bell; Peter W G Tennant; Catherine McParlin; Mark S Pearce; Ashley J Adamson; Judith Rankin; Stephen C Robson Journal: Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol Date: 2013-07-10 Impact factor: 2.435
Authors: Stéphanie A Prince; Kristi B Adamo; Meghan E Hamel; Jill Hardt; Sarah Connor Gorber; Mark Tremblay Journal: Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act Date: 2008-11-06 Impact factor: 6.457
Authors: Brenna R Menke; Cathryn Duchette; Rachel A Tinius; Alexandria Q Wilson; Elizabeth A Altizer; Jill M Maples Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2022-06-10 Impact factor: 4.614
Authors: Tom Deliens; Vickà Versele; Jasper Jehin; Eva D'Hondt; Yanni Verhavert; Peter Clarys; Roland Devlieger; Annick Bogaerts; Dirk Aerenhouts Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2021-04-27 Impact factor: 3.390
Authors: Pavel Dietz; Estelle D Watson; Matteo C Sattler; Wolfgang Ruf; Sylvia Titze; Mireille van Poppel Journal: BMC Pregnancy Childbirth Date: 2016-10-26 Impact factor: 3.007
Authors: Matteo C Sattler; Johannes Jaunig; Estelle D Watson; Mireille N M van Poppel; Lidwine B Mokkink; Caroline B Terwee; Pavel Dietz Journal: Sports Med Date: 2018-10 Impact factor: 11.136
Authors: Michèle Bisson; Jordie Croteau; Benjamin C Guinhouya; Emmanuel Bujold; François Audibert; William D Fraser; Isabelle Marc Journal: BMJ Open Sport Exerc Med Date: 2017-06-19