Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: http://hdl.handle.net/1893/27014
Full metadata record
DC FieldValueLanguage
dc.contributor.authorAhmad, Shaleenen_UK
dc.contributor.authorHarris, Tessen_UK
dc.contributor.authorLimb, Elizabeth Sen_UK
dc.contributor.authorKerry, Sally Men_UK
dc.contributor.authorVictor, Christina Ren_UK
dc.contributor.authorEkelund, Ulfen_UK
dc.contributor.authorIliffe, Steveen_UK
dc.contributor.authorWhincup, Peter Hen_UK
dc.contributor.authorBeighton, Caroleen_UK
dc.contributor.authorUssher, Michaelen_UK
dc.contributor.authorCook, Derek Gen_UK
dc.date.accessioned2018-04-16T22:31:10Z-
dc.date.available2018-04-16T22:31:10Z-
dc.date.issued2015-09-02en_UK
dc.identifier.other113en_UK
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/1893/27014-
dc.description.abstractBackground: 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. en_UK
dc.language.isoenen_UK
dc.publisherBioMed Centralen_UK
dc.relationAhmad S, Harris T, Limb ES, Kerry SM, Victor CR, Ekelund U, Iliffe S, Whincup PH, 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, Art. No.: 113. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12875-015-0324-8en_UK
dc.rights© Ahmad et al. 2015 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.en_UK
dc.rights.urihttp://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/en_UK
dc.subjectHealth promotionen_UK
dc.subjectpublic healthen_UK
dc.subjectprimary health careen_UK
dc.subjectquestionnaireen_UK
dc.subjectphysical activityen_UK
dc.subjectexerciseen_UK
dc.subjectwalkingen_UK
dc.subjectageingen_UK
dc.subjectreliabilityen_UK
dc.subjectvalidityen_UK
dc.titleEvaluation of reliability and validity of the General Practice Physical Activity Questionnaire (GPPAQ) in 60-74 year old primary care patientsen_UK
dc.typeJournal Articleen_UK
dc.identifier.doi10.1186/s12875-015-0324-8en_UK
dc.identifier.pmid26329981en_UK
dc.citation.jtitleBMC Family Practiceen_UK
dc.citation.issn1471-2296en_UK
dc.citation.volume16en_UK
dc.citation.publicationstatusPublisheden_UK
dc.citation.peerreviewedRefereeden_UK
dc.type.statusVoR - Version of Recorden_UK
dc.author.emailmichael.ussher@stir.ac.uken_UK
dc.citation.date02/09/2015en_UK
dc.contributor.affiliationSt George's, University of Londonen_UK
dc.contributor.affiliationSt George's, University of Londonen_UK
dc.contributor.affiliationSt George's, University of Londonen_UK
dc.contributor.affiliationQueen Mary, University of Londonen_UK
dc.contributor.affiliationBrunel Universityen_UK
dc.contributor.affiliationUniversity of Cambridgeen_UK
dc.contributor.affiliationUniversity College Londonen_UK
dc.contributor.affiliationSt George's, University of Londonen_UK
dc.contributor.affiliationKingston Universityen_UK
dc.contributor.affiliationInstitute for Social Marketingen_UK
dc.contributor.affiliationSt George's, University of Londonen_UK
dc.identifier.isiWOS:000360676700002en_UK
dc.identifier.scopusid2-s2.0-84940557865en_UK
dc.identifier.wtid880786en_UK
dc.contributor.orcid0000-0002-0995-7955en_UK
dc.date.accepted2015-08-17en_UK
dcterms.dateAccepted2015-08-17en_UK
dc.date.filedepositdate2018-03-22en_UK
rioxxterms.apcnot requireden_UK
rioxxterms.typeJournal Article/Reviewen_UK
rioxxterms.versionVoRen_UK
local.rioxx.authorAhmad, Shaleen|en_UK
local.rioxx.authorHarris, Tess|en_UK
local.rioxx.authorLimb, Elizabeth S|en_UK
local.rioxx.authorKerry, Sally M|en_UK
local.rioxx.authorVictor, Christina R|en_UK
local.rioxx.authorEkelund, Ulf|en_UK
local.rioxx.authorIliffe, Steve|en_UK
local.rioxx.authorWhincup, Peter H|en_UK
local.rioxx.authorBeighton, Carole|en_UK
local.rioxx.authorUssher, Michael|0000-0002-0995-7955en_UK
local.rioxx.authorCook, Derek G|en_UK
local.rioxx.projectInternal Project|University of Stirling|https://isni.org/isni/0000000122484331en_UK
local.rioxx.freetoreaddate2018-04-16en_UK
local.rioxx.licencehttp://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/|2018-04-16|en_UK
local.rioxx.filenameAhmad Harris et al.pdfen_UK
local.rioxx.filecount1en_UK
Appears in Collections:Faculty of Health Sciences and Sport Journal Articles

Files in This Item:
File Description SizeFormat 
Ahmad Harris et al.pdfFulltext - Published Version562.8 kBAdobe PDFView/Open


This item is protected by original copyright



A file in this item is licensed under a Creative Commons License Creative Commons

Items in the Repository are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.

The metadata of the records in the Repository are available under the CC0 public domain dedication: No Rights Reserved https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/

If you believe that any material held in STORRE infringes copyright, please contact library@stir.ac.uk providing details and we will remove the Work from public display in STORRE and investigate your claim.