Literature DB >> 28334801

A systematic review of the physical activity assessment tools used in primary care.

Toby O Smith1, Máire C McKenna2, Charlotte Salter3, Wendy Hardeman1, Kathryn Richardson1, Melvyn Hillsdon4, Carly A Hughes3,5, Nicholas Steel3, Andy P Jones3.   

Abstract

Background: Primary care is an ideal setting for physical activity interventions to prevent and manage common long-term conditions. To identify those who can benefit from such interventions and to deliver tailored support, primary care professionals (e.g. GPs, practice nurses, physiotherapists, health care assistants) need reliable and valid tools to assess physical activity. However, there is uncertainty about the best-performing tool. Objective: To identify the tools used in the literature to assess the physical activity in primary care and describe their psychometric properties. Method: A systematic review of published and unpublished literature was undertaken up to 1 December 2016). Papers detailing physical activity measures, tools or approaches used in primary care consultations were included. A synthesis of the frequency and context of their use, and their psychometric properties, was undertaken. Studies were appraised using the Downs and Black critical appraisal tool and the COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement Instruments (COSMIN) initiative checklist.
Results: Fourteen papers reported 10 physical activity assessment tools. The General Practice Physical Activity Questionnaire (GPPAQ) was most frequently reported. None of the assessment tools identified showed high reliability and validity. Intra-rater reliability ranged from kappa: 0.53 [Brief Physical Activity Assessment Tool (BPAAT)] to 0.67 (GPPAQ). Criterion validity ranged from Pearson's rho: 0.26 (GPPAQ) to 0.52 (Physical Activity Vital Sign). Concurrent validity ranged from kappa: 0.24 (GPPAQ) to 0.64 (BPAAT).
Conclusion: The evidence base about physical activity assessment in primary care is insufficient to inform current practice.
© The Author 2017. Published by Oxford University Press. All rights reserved. For permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oup.com.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Consultation; health promotion; physical inactivity; primary care; screening

Mesh:

Year:  2017        PMID: 28334801     DOI: 10.1093/fampra/cmx011

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Fam Pract        ISSN: 0263-2136            Impact factor:   2.267


  4 in total

Review 1.  Quality of life in older adults with sensory impairments: a systematic review.

Authors:  Ya-Chuan Tseng; Sara Hsin-Yi Liu; Meei-Fang Lou; Guey-Shiun Huang
Journal:  Qual Life Res       Date:  2018-02-05       Impact factor: 4.147

2.  How can GPs get people moving more?

Authors:  Raymond Leung; Katherine Marino; David Whittaker; Dionisio Izquierdo; Dipesh P Gopal
Journal:  Br J Gen Pract       Date:  2022-05-26       Impact factor: 6.302

3.  Validity of the Exercise Vital Sign Tool to Assess Physical Activity.

Authors:  Jennifer L Kuntz; Deborah R Young; Brian E Saelens; Lawrence D Frank; Richard T Meenan; John F Dickerson; Erin M Keast; Stephen P Fortmann
Journal:  Am J Prev Med       Date:  2021-03-27       Impact factor: 6.604

4.  Quality of life measures in older adults after traumatic brain injury: a systematic review.

Authors:  Cindy Hunt; Shatabdy Zahid; Naomi Ennis; Alicja Michalak; Cheryl Masanic; Chantal Vaidyanath; Shree Bhalerao; Michael D Cusimano; Andrew Baker
Journal:  Qual Life Res       Date:  2019-09-14       Impact factor: 4.147

  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.