Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32799854›Full record

ArticleBMC public health2020

Cross-cultural adaptation and validation of the Global Physical Activity Questionnaire among healthy Hungarian adults.

Pongrác Ács, József Betlehem, András Oláh, Barbara Bergier, Kata Morvay-Sey, Alexandra Makai, Viktória Prémusz

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC public health, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 23 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
23citing papers in PubMed
2.8field-weighted citation impact, top 9% 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

23 citing papers in PubMed, 36 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Observational
  14. Article
  15. Freedive Training Gives Additional Physiological Effect Compared to Pulmonary Rehabilitation in COPD.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2022
    Article
  16. Observational
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Observational
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

7 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Pongrác ÁcsFaculty of Health Sciences, University of Pécs, Pécs, Hungary.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4999-7345
József BetlehemFaculty of Health Sciences, University of Pécs, Pécs, Hungary.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4526-4910
András OláhFaculty of Health Sciences, University of Pécs, Pécs, Hungary.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1582-5385
Barbara BergierPope John Paul II. State School of Higher Education, Biała Podlaska, Poland.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9268-4942
Kata Morvay-SeyFaculty of Health Sciences, University of Pécs, Pécs, Hungary.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5468-9358
Alexandra MakaiFaculty of Health Sciences, University of Pécs, Pécs, Hungary.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1907-120X
Viktória PrémuszFaculty of Health Sciences, University of Pécs, Pécs, Hungary. premusz.viktoria@pte.hu.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4059-104X
University of Pecs · HUAkademia Bialska im. Jana Pawła II · PL

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundPhysical activity (PA) is an important factor among the determinants of health due to it's protective factor and preventive role. Self-reported measures such as questionnaires are most commonly used in public health studies, but may over- or underestimate actual patterns of PA. Therefore, accelerometers are widely used to assess concurrent validity. The aim of the present study was to adapt and validate the self-administered GPAQ - Hungarian version (GPAQ-H) against accelerometer data and IPAQ-Hungarian long version (IPAQ-HL) in Hungarian healthy young adults.

methodsA cross-sectional comparative study was conducted to examine the last 7 days PA by GPAQ-H, comparing with IPAQ-HL and Actigraph GT3X accelerometer to measure concurrent validity and reliability. A convenient sample of 300 young adults was recruited in January - July 2018 at the University of Pécs, in South-Hungary, 120 participants (age 21.53 ± 1.75 years, 46.66% male) were included in the validity and reliability study.

resultsSignificant differences between the three instruments were found (p < 0.001) in all scores, except PAQs vigorous activities (p = 0.332) and GPAQ-H and accelerometer MVPA score (p = 0.424). A moderate KMO measure was found (0.538) with a significant Barlett's test of Sphericity (279.51; p < 0.001). The total variance was explained as 81.10%. The reliability of the GPAQ-H instrument with all domain's scores was 0.521 (CI 0.371-0.644). We found in all intensity scores and sitting time good reliability scores (R = 0.899-987, p < 0.001) between the baseline and follow-up (N = 33 random subsample). The Bland-Altman plots were showed that GPAQ-H overestimates vigorous activities by 212.75 min/week (331.82-757.42) and MVPA by 104.93 min/week (- 1016.98-807.11). A high difference, 6336.79 min/week (CI 3638.18-9035.40) was revealed regarding sitting, as GPAQ-H largely underestimated the time spent sedentary.

conclusionsThe Hungarian GPAQ self-administered form showed fair to moderate validity with correlation coefficients similar to other European studies. Based on our study's results it could be claimed that the GPAQ-H measurement tool is a valid and reliable questionnaire to measure the healthy Hungarian population's physical activity patterns. However, our results also proved that GPAQ-H alone is not a valid and reliable questionnaire to measure sitting time.

Indexed as

ExerciseSurveys and QuestionnairesCross-Cultural ComparisonCross-Sectional StudiesFemaleHumansHungaryMaleReproducibility of ResultsYoung Adultaccelerometercultural adaptationGPAQphysical activityquestionnairereliabilityvalidity

Identifiers

PMID32799854
PMCPMC7429946
OpenAlexW3049161233

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.