ArticlePilot and feasibility studies2022
Adaptation of a Danish online version of the Oxford Physical Activity Questionnaire (OPAQ) for secondary school students-a pilot study.
Article in Pilot and feasibility studies, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper, 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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Psychometric Properties of Physical Activity Questionnaires for Children and Adolescents: An Updated Systematic Review.Sports medicine (Auckland, N.Z.) · 2025Pooled it
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo adapt and partly validate a Danish online version of the patient-reported outcome measure (PROM) Oxford Physical Activity Questionnaire ("OPAQ") and evaluate mobile phones and tablets as data capturing tool to identify potential problems and deficiencies in the PROM prior to implementation in the full study.
methodsThe OPAQ was translated into Danish by a formalised forward-backward translation procedure. Face validity was examined by interviewing 12 school students aged 10-15, recruited from two Danish public schools. After modifications, the online version of the Danish OPAQ was pilot tested in a convenience sample of seven school students for 1 week. Simultaneous objective accelerometer data were captured during the registration period.
resultsNo major challenges were identified when translating OPAQ. Based on the interviews, the Danish version of OPAQ was perceived to be easy to understand in general, and the questions were relevant for tracking activities during the week. Five of the 12 participants had difficulties with understanding the introductory question: "what is your cultural background" in the original OPAQ. The interviews revealed that the participants recalling 7 days forgot to record some of the physical activity they had done during the week, indicating issues with the weekly recall method. After transforming to the online version, this was reported to be easy and quick to fill in (taking 1-3 min per day), and participants reported the daily design was helpful to remember activities. There was good correspondence between the online version and objective actigraphs with a tendency to underreport. Six participants reported 10-60 min less moderate to vigorous physical activity compared to the actigraphs, while one participant reported 3 min more.
conclusionParticipants found the online OPAQ quick and easy to complete during a 1-week period. Completing daily rather than weekly may help limit issues with recall. Overall, there was good agreement between the objective actigraphs and the OPAQ, though the OPAQ tended to slightly underreport moderate to vigorous physical activity. The Danish online version of OPAQ may be useful for capturing school students' physical activity when objective measures are not feasible.
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.