ArticlePloS one2015
Screening Physical Activity in Family Practice: Validity of the Spanish Version of a Brief Physical Activity Questionnaire.
Article in PloS one, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 24 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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.
Who cites it
24 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Pooled it
- Trial
- Effectiveness of a multiple health-behaviour-change intervention in increasing adherence to the Mediterranean Diet in adults (EIRA study): a randomized controlled hybrid trial.BMC public health · 2022Trial
- Trial
- Long-term Effectiveness of a Smartphone App Combined With a Smart Band on Weight Loss, Physical Activity, and Caloric Intake in a Population With Overweight and Obesity (Evident 3 Study): Randomized Controlled Trial.Journal of medical Internet research · 2022Trial
- Trial
- Trial
- Complex multiple risk intervention to promote healthy behaviours in people between 45 to 75 years attended in primary health care (EIRA study): study protocol for a hybrid trial.BMC public health · 2018Trial
- Trial
- Validation of the brief physical activity assessment tool: Comparison of telephone and in-person administration.PloS one · 2025Article
- Socioeconomic determinants and self-rated health among hotel housekeepers in the Balearic Islands (Spain).Frontiers in public health · 2024Article
- Functional Exercise Versus Specific Pelvic Floor Exercise: Observational Pilot Study in Female University Students.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
- Protocol for an observational cohort study on psychological, addictive, lifestyle behavior and highly prevalent affective disorders in primary health care adults.Frontiers in psychiatry · 2023Article
- A personalized intervention to prevent depression in primary care based on risk predictive algorithms and decision support systems: protocol of the e-predictD study.Frontiers in psychiatry · 2023Article
- Reference Equation of a New Incremental Step Test to Assess Exercise Capacity in the Portuguese Adult Population.Journal of clinical medicine · 2022Article
- Article
- Article
- Chronic Pain and Work Conditions of Hotel Housekeepers: A Descriptive Study.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2022Article
- Are subjective measures the answer to assess physical inactivity on a daily basis in patients with resistant hypertension?Journal of human hypertension · 2021Article
- Implementation of the EIRA 3 Intervention by Targeting Primary Health Care Practitioners: Effectiveness in Increasing Physical Activity.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesThe use of brief screening tools to identify inactive patients is essential to improve the efficiency of primary care-based physical activity (PA) programs. However, the current employment of short PA questionnaires within the Spanish primary care pathway is unclear. This study evaluated the validity of the Spanish version of a Brief Physical Activity Assessment Tool (SBPAAT).
methodsA validation study was carried out within the EVIDENT project. A convenience sample of patients (n = 1,184; age 58.9±13.7 years; 60.5% female) completed the SBPAAT and the 7-day Physical Activity Recall (7DPAR) and, in addition, wore an accelerometer (ActiGraph GT3X) for seven consecutive days. Validity was evaluated by measuring agreement, Kappa correlation coefficients, sensitivity and specificity in achieving current PA recommendations with the 7DPAR. Pearson correlation coefficients with the number of daily minutes engaged in moderate and vigorous intensity PA according to the accelerometer were also assessed. Comparison with accelerometer counts, daily minutes engaged in sedentary, light, moderate, and vigorous intensity PA, total daily kilocalories, and total PA and leisure time expenditure (METs-hour-week) between the sufficiently and insufficiently active groups identified by SBPAAT were reported.
resultsThe SBPAAT identified 41.3% sufficiently active (n = 489) and 58.7% insufficiently active (n = 695) patients; it showed moderate validity (k = 0.454, 95% CI: 0.402-0.505) and a specificity and sensitivity of 74.3% and 74.6%, respectively. Validity was fair for identifying daily minutes engaged in moderate (r = 0.215, 95% CI:0.156 to 0.272) and vigorous PA (r = 0.282, 95% CI:0.165 to 0.391). Insufficiently active patients according to the SBPAAT significantly reported fewer counts/minute (-22%), fewer minutes/day of moderate (-11.38) and vigorous PA (-2.69), spent fewer total kilocalories/day (-753), and reported a lower energy cost (METs-hour-week) of physical activities globally (-26.82) and during leisure time (-19.62).
conclusionsThe SBPAAT is a valid tool to identify Spanish-speaking patients who are insufficiently active to achieve health benefits.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
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.