Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26329981›Full record

ArticleBMC family practice2015

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

Shaleen Ahmad, Tess Harris, Elizabeth Limb, Sally Kerry, Christina Victor, Ulf Ekelund, Steve Iliffe, Peter Whincup, Carole Beighton, Michael Ussher and 1 more

Open access · goldAbstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in BMC family practice, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 48 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
48citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
2.3field-weighted citation impact, top 12% 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.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

48 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 101 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Trial
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  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

11 authors at 6 institutions in 2 countries.

Shaleen AhmadPopulation Health Research Institute, St George's University of London, Cranmer Terrace, SW17 0RE, UK. shaleen.ahmad@sgul.ac.uk.
Tess HarrisPopulation Health Research Institute, St George's University of London, Cranmer Terrace, SW17 0RE, UK. tharris@sgul.ac.uk.
Elizabeth LimbPopulation Health Research Institute, St George's University of London, Cranmer Terrace, SW17 0RE, UK. e.limb@sgul.ac.uk.
Sally KerryPragmatic Clinical Trials Unit, QMUL, London, UK. s.m.kerry@qmul.ac.uk.
Christina VictorDepartment of Clinical Sciences, Brunel University, PO Box 4014, 0806, Oslo, Norway. Christina.Victor@brunel.ac.uk.
Ulf EkelundDepartment of Sport Medicine, Norwegian School of Sport Sciences, PO Box 4014, 0806, Oslo, Norway. ulf.ekelund@nih.no.
Steve IliffeResearch Department of Primary Care and Population Health, UCL, London, UK. s.iliffe@ucl.ac.uk.
Peter WhincupPopulation Health Research Institute, St George's University of London, Cranmer Terrace, SW17 0RE, UK. pwhincup@sgul.ac.uk.
Carole BeightonFaculty of Health and Social Care, Kingston University, London, UK. c.beighton@sgul.kingston.ac.uk.
Michael UssherPopulation Health Research Institute, St George's University of London, Cranmer Terrace, SW17 0RE, UK. mussher@sgul.ac.uk.
Derek G CookPopulation Health Research Institute, St George's University of London, Cranmer Terrace, SW17 0RE, UK. sgjd250@sgul.ac.uk.
St George's, University of London · GBBrunel University of London · GBKingston University · GBMRC Clinical Trials Unit at UCL · GBNorwegian School of Sport Sciences · NOUniversity College London · GB

Funding

Department of Health 10/32/02Department of Health PB-PG-0909-20055Medical Research Council MC_U106179473Medical Research Council MC_UU_12015/3
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundGPPAQ (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.

methodPhysical 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).

resultsFor 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.

conclusionsGPPAQ 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.

Indexed as

Motor ActivityAccelerometryActigraphyAgedFemaleGeneral PracticeGeriatric AssessmentHumansMaleMiddle AgedReproducibility of ResultsSelf ReportSurveys and QuestionnairesWalking

Identifiers

PMID26329981
PMCPMC4557746
OpenAlexW2157363808

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.