SORA

Advancing, promoting and sharing knowledge of health through excellence in teaching, clinical practice and research into the prevention and treatment of illness

Evaluation of reliability and validity of the General Practice Physical Activity Questionnaire (GPPAQ) in 60-74 year old primary care patients.

Ahmad, S; Harris, T; Limb, E; Kerry, S; Victor, C; Ekelund, U; Iliffe, S; Whincup, P; Beighton, C; Ussher, M; et al. Ahmad, S; Harris, T; Limb, E; Kerry, S; Victor, C; Ekelund, U; Iliffe, S; Whincup, P; Beighton, C; Ussher, M; Cook, DG (2015) Evaluation of reliability and validity of the General Practice Physical Activity Questionnaire (GPPAQ) in 60-74 year old primary care patients. BMC Family Practice, 16. p. 113. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12875-015-0324-8
SGUL Authors: Cook, Derek Gordon Harris, Teresa Jane Ussher, Michael Henry Whincup, Peter Hynes Ahmad, Shaleen Beighton, Carole Ann

[img]
Preview
PDF Published Version
Available under License Creative Commons Attribution.

Download (576kB) | Preview

Abstract

BACKGROUND: 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. METHOD: 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). RESULTS: 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. CONCLUSIONS: 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.

Item Type: Article
Additional Information: © 2015 Ahmad et al. Open Access This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.
Keywords: Health promotion, Public Heath, Primary health care, Questionnaire, Physical activity, Exercise, Walking, Ageing, Reliability, Validity, Public Health, 1117 Public Health And Health Services
SGUL Research Institute / Research Centre: Academic Structure > Population Health Research Institute (INPH)
Journal or Publication Title: BMC Family Practice
Language: eng
Dates:
DateEvent
2 September 2015Published
Publisher License: Creative Commons: Attribution 4.0
Projects:
Project IDFunderFunder ID
MC_U106179473Medical Research Councilhttp://dx.doi.org/10.13039/501100000265
MC_UU_12015/3Medical Research Councilhttp://dx.doi.org/10.13039/501100000265
PB-PG-0909-20055National Institute for Health Researchhttp://dx.doi.org/10.13039/501100000272
PubMed ID: 26329981
Web of Science ID: WOS:000360676700002
Go to PubMed abstract
URI: https://openaccess.sgul.ac.uk/id/eprint/107678
Publisher's version: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12875-015-0324-8

Actions (login required)

Edit Item Edit Item