Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24422666›Full record

ArticleBMC family practice2014

Physical activity assessment in practice: a mixed methods study of GPPAQ use in primary care.

Neil Heron, Mark A Tully, Michelle C McKinley, Margaret E Cupples

Registry-linked trialOpen access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC family practice, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT05598294 (Can Wearable Technology Products Change Our Patient Management in Laparoscopic Colorectal Cancer Surgery), which is not on this map. Cited by 24 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
24citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
3.3field-weighted citation impact, top 7% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

NCT05598294 naunknown statusnot on this mapstarted 2022, after this paper: background citation

Can Wearable Technology Products Change Our Patient Management in Laparoscopic Colorectal Cancer Surgery

TypeinterventionalSponsorAnkara UniversityRan2022 to 2024Enrolled190ConditionsAmbulation Difficulty, Physical ExaminationArmsMobilization recommendations
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

24 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 79 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. The Utility of Measures of Physical Behavior, Function, and Fitness as Predictors of Mortality.Mayo Clinic proceedings. Innovations, quality & outcomes · 2026
    Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Anthropometric Assessment of General and Central Obesity in Urban Moroccan Women.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2022
    Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Observational
  17. Article
  18. GPs' knowledge, use, and confidence in national physical activity and health guidelines and tools: a questionnaire-based survey of general practice in England.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2017
    Article
  19. Practical Strategies for Assessing Patient Physical Activity Levels in Primary Care.Mayo Clinic proceedings. Innovations, quality & outcomes · 2017
    Review
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Neil HeronDepartment of General Practice and Primary Care, Queen's University, Belfast, Northern Ireland. n.heron02@qub.ac.uk.
Mark A Tully
Michelle C McKinley
Margaret E Cupples
Queen's University Belfast · GB

Funding

Medical Research Council MR/K023241/1
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundInsufficient physical activity (PA) levels which increase the risk of chronic disease are reported by almost two-thirds of the population. More evidence is needed about how PA promotion can be effectively implemented in general practice (GP), particularly in socio-economically disadvantaged communities. One tool recommended for the assessment of PA in GP and supported by NICE (National Institute for Health and Care Excellence) is The General Practice Physical Activity Questionnaire (GPPAQ) but details of how it may be used and of its acceptability to practitioners and patients are limited. This study aims to examine aspects of GPPAQ administration in non-urgent patient contacts using different primary care electronic recording systems and to explore the views of health professionals regarding its use.

methodsFour general practices, selected because of their location within socio-economically disadvantaged areas, were invited to administer GPPAQs to patients, aged 35-75 years, attending non-urgent consultations, over two-week periods. They used different methods of administration and different electronic medical record systems (EMIS, Premiere, Vision). Participants' (general practitioners (GPs), nurses and receptionists) views regarding GPPAQ use were explored via questionnaires and focus groups.

resultsOf 2,154 eligible consultations, 192 (8.9%) completed GPPAQs; of these 83 (43%) were categorised as inactive. All practices were located within areas ranked as being in the tertile of greatest socio-economic deprivation in Northern Ireland. GPs/nurses in two practices invited completion of the GPPAQ, receptionists did so in two. One practice used an electronic template; three used paper copies of the questionnaires.End-of-study questionnaires, completed by 11 GPs, 3 nurses and 2 receptionists and two focus groups, with GPs (n = 8) and nurses (n = 4) indicated that practitioners considered the GPPAQ easy to use but not in every consultation. Its use extended consultation time, particularly for patients with complex problems who could potentially benefit from PA promotion.

conclusionsGPs and nurses reported that the GPPAQ itself was an easy tool with which to assess PA levels in general practice and feasible to use in a range of electronic record systems but integration within routine practice is constrained by time and complex consultations. Further exploration of ways to facilitate PA promotion into practice is needed.

Indexed as

General PracticeMotor ActivityPrimary Health CareSurveys and QuestionnairesAdultAgedFeasibility StudiesHumansMiddle Aged

Identifiers

PMID24422666
PMCPMC3897938
OpenAlexW2170571211

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.