Validation of the General Practice Physical Activity Questionnaire after severe COVID-19.
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Wang Lin, Ntotsis Kimon, Manifield James, Tziannou Katerina, Plekhanova Tatiana, Rowlands Alex, Edwardson Charlotte L, Baldwin Molly, Bishop Nicolette C, Bolton Charlotte, Chalmers James D, Daynes Enya, Docherty Annemarie, Efstathiou Claudia, Elneima Omer, Gardiner Lucy, Greenhalf William, Greening Neil, Guillen-Guio Beatriz, Harris Victoria, Harrison Ewen, Ho Ling-Pei, Horsley Alexander, Houchen-Wolloff Linzy, Jacob Joseph, Leavy Olivia, Lone Nazir, Lozano-Rojas Daniel, Marks Michael, McAuley Hamish, McNarry Melitta, Nolan Claire, Quint Jennifer K, Raman Betty, Richardson Matthew, Sargeant Jack, Saunders Ruth M, Sereno Marco, Shikotra Aarti, Singapuri Amisha, Stensel David J, Taquet Maxime, Thorpe Mathew, Vogiatzis Ioannis, Man William, Wain Louise V, Stewart Iain, Singh Sally, Brightling Christopher E, Lawson Claire, Yates Tom, Evans Rachael A
Аннотация
METHODS: Post-hospitalisation for COVID-19, adults attended a 1-year-visit and completed the GPPAQ Physical Activity Index (PAI-4 active), 14-day wrist-worn accelerometry (moderate-vigorous physical activity (MVPA) active) and other health outcomes. Validity was examined via 1) internal consistency (factor analysis); 2) measurement invariance across sex, age and ethnicity using differential item functioning (DIF); 3) convergent validity (GPPAQ sensitivity/specificity versus accelerometry); and 4) construct validity (correlations with health outcomes).
RESULTS: 752 participants had GPPAQ and accelerometry (265 female, mean±sd age 60.9±11.6 years), MVPA 18.75 min·day-1 (interquartile range 7.55-36.11), PAI-1 46.8%, PAI-2 15.6%, PAI-3 19.4% and PAI-4 18.2%. Factor analyses supported good internal consistency with two factors (daily activities and physical exercise). Comparative factor index (CFI) showed an excellent fit (CFI 0.965). DIF indicated moderate variability by sex and age. GPPAQ-PAI showed limited sensitivity (26.3%) for correctly classifying physically active individuals, but higher specificity (88.4%) for classifying physical inactivity, and weak-to-moderate correlations with health outcomes.
CONCLUSIONS: GPPAQ demonstrates internal consistency, with construct and convergent validity in adults 1 year after COVID-19 hospitalisation. GPPAQ effectively identifies inactive individuals to support clinical care; however, its sensitivity suggests under-estimation of activity relative to accelerometry. Future pathways should combine GPPAQ with device-based assessment to optimise evaluation of physical activity to guide pulmonary rehabilitation and targeted interventions.