CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 192Physical Activity and HealthMusculoskeletal pain and rehabilitationHealth Education and Validation

Screening for Physical Activity in Family PracticeEvaluation of Two Brief Assessment Tools

SMITH, B, MARSHALL, A, HUANG, N·2005·American Journal of Preventive Medicine
DOI 10.1016/j.amepre.2005.07.005
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Background Physical activity (PA) is relevant to the prevention and management of many health conditions in family practice. There is a need for an efficient, reliable, and valid assessment tool to identify patients in need of PA interventions.Methods Twenty-eight family physicians in three Australian cities assessed the PA of their adult patients during 2004 using either a two- (2Q) or three-question (3Q) assessment. This was administered again approximately 3 days later to evaluate test-retest reliability. Concurrent validity was evaluated by measuring agreement with the Active Australia Questionnaire, and criterion validity by comparison with 7-day Computer Science Applications, Inc. (CSA) accelerometer counts.Results A total of 509 patients participated, with 428 (84%) completing a repeat assessment, and 415 (82%) accelerometer monitoring. The brief assessments had moderate test-retest reliability (2Q k=58.0%, 95% confidence interval [CI]=47.2-68.8%; 3Q k=55.6%, 95% CI=43.8-67.4%); fair to moderate concurrent validity (2Q k=46.7%, 95% CI=35.6-57.9%; 3Q k=38.7%, 95% CI=26.4-51.1%); and poor to fair criterion validity (2Q k=18.2%, 95% CI=3.9-32.6%; 3Q k=24.3%, 95% CI=11.6-36.9%) for identifying patients as sufficiently active. A four-level scale of PA derived from the PA assessments was significantly correlated with accelerometer minutes (2Q rho=0.39, 95% CI=0.28-0.49; 3Q rho=0.31, 95% CI=0.18-0.43). Physicians reported that the assessments took 1 to 2 minutes to complete.Conclusions Both PA assessments were feasible to use in family practice, and were suitable for identifying the least active patients. The 2Q assessment was preferred by clinicians and may be most appropriate for dissemination.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.amepre.2005.07.005

Cites

36 of 36 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 37 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
SMITH, B., MARSHALL, A., & HUANG, N.
Affiliations
  • The University of Sydney (AU)
  • The University of Queensland (AU)
ORCID
Venue
American Journal of Preventive Medicine
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2005-11
Volume
29
Issue
4
Pages
256-264
ISSN
0749-3797 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1016/j.amepre.2005.07.005
OpenAlex
W1967634024
Cited by
192
References
37
Citations by year
2025: 5 · 2024: 9 · 2023: 5 · 2022: 5 · 2021: 12 · 2020: 64 · 2019: 11 · 2018: 9 · 2017: 10 · 2016: 12 · 2015: 10 · 2014: 6 · 2013: 8 · 2012: 7
FWCI
1.40
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Licence
www.elsevier.com/tdm/userlicense/1.0/ (tdm)
Locations
  • American Journal of Preventive Medicine (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Physiology › Physical Activity and Health
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pharmacology › Musculoskeletal pain and rehabilitation
  • Social Sciences › Education › Health Education and Validation
Keywords
physical activity measurement, general practice, test-retest reliability, concurrent validity, criterion validity, accelerometer, physical activity level, primary care
MeSH terms
Adolescent, Adult, Family Practice, Female, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Surveys and Questionnaires, Reproducibility of Results, Exercise, Monitoring, Ambulatory

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review