Jennifer L Kuntz1, Deborah R Young2, Brian E Saelens3, Lawrence D Frank4, Richard T Meenan5, John F Dickerson5, Erin M Keast5, Stephen P Fortmann5. 1. Center for Health Research, Kaiser Permanente Northwest, Portland, Oregon. Electronic address: jennifer.l.kuntz@kpchr.org. 2. Department of Research and Evaluation, Kaiser Permanente Southern California, Pasadena, California. 3. Seattle Children's Research Institute, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington. 4. Urban Design 4 Health, Inc., Rochester, New York; Health & Community Design Lab, UBC School of Population & Public Health and School of Community and Regional Planning, The University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada. 5. Center for Health Research, Kaiser Permanente Northwest, Portland, Oregon.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Assessment and counseling by healthcare providers can successfully increase physical activity; however, a valid instrument to effectively measure physical activity is needed. This study examines the validity of the Exercise Vital Sign tool by comparing Exercise Vital Sign data collected at Kaiser Permanente Northwest with accelerometry data. METHODS: Participants (n=521) completed accelerometer monitoring and had ≥1 Exercise Vital Sign measurement in their electronic medical record. Using accelerometry as the gold standard, the association between moderate-to-vigorous physical activity minutes per week estimated through Exercise Vital Sign and that estimated through accelerometry was examined using the Spearman correlation coefficient. Comparability of moderate-to-vigorous physical activity categories (inactive, lowly active, moderately active, sufficiently active) was assessed using simple and weighted κ statistics. Sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative predictive values were calculated. The study was conducted in 2012-2015, with analysis in 2019-2020. RESULTS: Average accelerometry-based moderate-to-vigorous physical activity was 212 minutes per week, and 57% of the participants were considered sufficiently active. Exercise Vital Sign‒based moderate-to-vigorous physical activity averaged 170 minutes per week, and 53% of the participants were active. There was a positive correlation between the moderate-to-vigorous physical activity minutes per week reported through Exercise Vital Sign and that reported through accelerometry (r =0.38, p<0.0001). A fair agreement was observed between Exercise Vital Sign‒ and accelerometry-based moderate-to-vigorous physical activity categories (weighted κ=0.29), with the highest agreement occurring for those with physical activity level ≥150 minutes per week. The positive correlation increased when moderate-to-vigorous physical activity was examined dichotomously (<150 or ≥150 minutes per week, κ=0.34). The sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value for Exercise Vital Sign (when compared with those of accelerometry) were 67%, 68%, 61%, and 73%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The Exercise Vital Sign is a useful physical activity assessment tool that correctly identifies the majority of adults who do and do not meet physical activity guidelines.
INTRODUCTION: Assessment and counseling by healthcare providers can successfully increase physical activity; however, a valid instrument to effectively measure physical activity is needed. This study examines the validity of the Exercise Vital Sign tool by comparing Exercise Vital Sign data collected at Kaiser Permanente Northwest with accelerometry data. METHODS: Participants (n=521) completed accelerometer monitoring and had ≥1 Exercise Vital Sign measurement in their electronic medical record. Using accelerometry as the gold standard, the association between moderate-to-vigorous physical activity minutes per week estimated through Exercise Vital Sign and that estimated through accelerometry was examined using the Spearman correlation coefficient. Comparability of moderate-to-vigorous physical activity categories (inactive, lowly active, moderately active, sufficiently active) was assessed using simple and weighted κ statistics. Sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative predictive values were calculated. The study was conducted in 2012-2015, with analysis in 2019-2020. RESULTS: Average accelerometry-based moderate-to-vigorous physical activity was 212 minutes per week, and 57% of the participants were considered sufficiently active. Exercise Vital Sign‒based moderate-to-vigorous physical activity averaged 170 minutes per week, and 53% of the participants were active. There was a positive correlation between the moderate-to-vigorous physical activity minutes per week reported through Exercise Vital Sign and that reported through accelerometry (r =0.38, p<0.0001). A fair agreement was observed between Exercise Vital Sign‒ and accelerometry-based moderate-to-vigorous physical activity categories (weighted κ=0.29), with the highest agreement occurring for those with physical activity level ≥150 minutes per week. The positive correlation increased when moderate-to-vigorous physical activity was examined dichotomously (<150 or ≥150 minutes per week, κ=0.34). The sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value for Exercise Vital Sign (when compared with those of accelerometry) were 67%, 68%, 61%, and 73%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The Exercise Vital Sign is a useful physical activity assessment tool that correctly identifies the majority of adults who do and do not meet physical activity guidelines.
Authors: William E Kraus; Vera Bittner; Lawrence Appel; Steven N Blair; Timothy Church; Jean-Pierre Després; Barry A Franklin; Todd D Miller; Russell R Pate; Ruth E Taylor-Piliae; Dorothea K Vafiadis; Laurie Whitsel Journal: Circulation Date: 2015-04-27 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: Susan J Curry; Alex H Krist; Douglas K Owens; Michael J Barry; Aaron B Caughey; Karina W Davidson; Chyke A Doubeni; John W Epling; David C Grossman; Alex R Kemper; Martha Kubik; C Seth Landefeld; Carol M Mangione; Maureen G Phipps; Michael Silverstein; Melissa A Simon; Chien-Wen Tseng; John B Wong Journal: JAMA Date: 2018-09-18 Impact factor: 56.272
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: Toby O Smith; Máire C McKenna; Charlotte Salter; Wendy Hardeman; Kathryn Richardson; Melvyn Hillsdon; Carly A Hughes; Nicholas Steel; Andy P Jones Journal: Fam Pract Date: 2017-08-01 Impact factor: 2.267
Authors: Yvonne M Golightly; Kelli D Allen; Kirsten R Ambrose; Jamie L Stiller; Kelly R Evenson; Christiane Voisin; Jennifer M Hootman; Leigh F Callahan Journal: Prev Chronic Dis Date: 2017-11-30 Impact factor: 2.830
Authors: Robert Sallis; Deborah Rohm Young; Sara Y Tartof; James F Sallis; Jeevan Sall; Qiaowu Li; Gary N Smith; Deborah A Cohen Journal: Br J Sports Med Date: 2021-04-13 Impact factor: 13.800