Evaluation of reliability and validity of the General Practice Physical Activity Questionnaire (GPPAQ) in 60-74 year old primary care patients.
Evaluation of reliability and validity of the General Practice Physical Activity Questionnaire (GPPAQ) in 60-74 year old primary care patients.
复制标题
DOI：
10.1186/s12875-015-0324-8
复制
发表时间：
2015-09-02
影响因子：
2.9
通讯作者：
Cook DG
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Ahmad S;Harris T;Limb E;Kerry S;Victor C;Ekelund U;Iliffe S;Whincup P;Beighton C;Ussher M;Cook DG
GPPAQ（General Practice Physical Activity Questionnaire）是一种广泛用于初级保健的自我评估体力活动问卷。缺乏老年人的可靠性和有效性数据。研究目的是：从PACE-Lift（Pedometer Accelerometer Consultation Evaluation-Lift）体力活动试验中评估GPPAQ在60-74奥尔兹中的可靠性和有效性;并评估在评估是否符合体力活动指南时，将快走添加到GPPAQ评分是否会提高其有效性。通过加速度计和自我报告GPPAQ在基线时的一周内以及3个月和12个月后，对来自3家参加PACE-Lift的英国全科诊所的60-74岁参与者的身体活动进行客观评估。可靠性：对照组（n = 148）的GPPAQ评分在基线、3个月和12个月时进行了重复性比较。有效期：我们比较了所有基线受试者（n = 298）的GPPAQ“活跃”评级（不需要体力活动建议的人）和使用加速度计达到体力活动指南的人。使用加速度计作为客观比较物，计算GPPAQ灵敏度和特异性，并在将快走加入GPPAQ评分（GPPAQ-WALK）后重复。对于可靠性，GPPAQ显示56%（70/126）和67%（87/129）的对照组在3个月和12个月时的评分分别与基线评分相同。在基线时，24%（69/289）达到了根据加速度计的体力活动指南，而16%（47/289）被归类为GPPAQ“活跃”。GPPAQ的敏感性为19%（13/69），特异性为85%（186/220）. GPPAQ-WALK的敏感性为39%（27/69），特异性为70%（155/220）。GPPAQ具有合理的可靠性，但本研究在老年人中测量有效性的结果表明，与客观加速度测量法在准确识别身体活动水平方面的一致性较差。在GPPAQ中包括快走增加了灵敏度，但降低了特异性，并且没有改善整体筛选性能。因此，与加速度计相比，本有效性研究不支持GPPAQ在该年龄组的初级保健中用于国民健康服务健康检查。本文的在线版本（doi：10.1186/s12875-015-0324-8）包含补充材料，可供授权用户使用。
GPPAQ (General Practice Physical Activity Questionnaire) is a self-assessment physical activity questionnaire widely used in primary care. Reliability and validity data in older people are lacking. The study aims were: to assess GPPAQ’s reliability and validity in 60–74 year olds from the PACE-Lift (Pedometer Accelerometer Consultation Evaluation-Lift) physical activity trial; and to assess whether adding brisk walking to the GPPAQ score improves its validity when assessing if physical activity guidelines are being met. Physical activity was assessed objectively by accelerometry and by self-report GPPAQ over one week periods at baseline, and three and twelve months later, in 60–74 year old participants from three United Kingdom general practices enrolled in PACE-Lift. Reliability: GPPAQ scores in controls (n = 148) were compared for repeatability at baseline, 3 and 12 months. Validity: we compared the GPPAQ “active” rating (those not requiring physical activity advice) with those achieving physical activity guidelines using accelerometry, in all baseline subjects (n = 298). Using accelerometry as an objective comparator, GPPAQ sensitivity and specificity were calculated and repeated after adding brisk walking into the GPPAQ score (GPPAQ-WALK). For reliability, GPPAQ showed 56 % (70/126) and 67 % (87/129) of controls scored the same at 3 and 12 months respectively, as they scored at baseline. At baseline 24 % (69/289) achieved physical activity guidelines according to accelerometry, whilst 16 % (47/289) were classified as GPPAQ “active”. GPPAQ had 19 % (13/69) sensitivity and 85 % (186/220) specificity. GPPAQ-WALK had 39 % (27/69) sensitivity and 70 % (155/220) specificity. GPPAQ has reasonable reliability but results from this study measuring validity in older adults indicates poor agreement with objective accelerometry for accurately identifying physical activity levels. Including brisk walking in GPPAQ increased sensitivity, but reduced specificity and did not improve overall screening performance. GPPAQ’s use in National Health Service health checks in primary care in this age group cannot therefore be supported by this validity study comparing to accelerometry. The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12875-015-0324-8) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.