ArticleResearch square2024
The utility of physical activity questionnaires among African origin populations; lost in translation?
Article in Research square, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
21 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Background: Physical activity (PA) is an important preventive factor of non-communicable diseases (NCDs), particularly cardiovascular disease, yet progress towards reducing physical inactivity in populations is slow. Population-levels of PA are most often estimated using self-report questionnaires in population surveys, such as the Global PA Questionnaire (GPAQ), which may not accurately reflect objectively measured PA, such as accelerometers. The aim of the current study was to compare self-report vs objectively measured PA across 5 African-origin populations. Methods: Approximately 2,000 African-origin men and women (35-55 yrs) were enrolled in a prospective cohort study to explore the relationship between lifestyle and cardiometabolic health. Participants were from Ghana, South Africa (SA), Jamaica, Seychelles, and the United States (US). Data collection included objective PA (accelerometer) and self-reported PA (GPAQ). WHO defines "sufficiently active" as performing >150 minutes of moderate intensity PA per week, or >600 MET*min/week (metabolic equivalent of task in minutes/week). Logistic regression was used to determine the proportion of participants that were physically active by accelerometry, among those who were found as sufficiently active based on GPAQ. Results: 1,161 participants had complete self-reported PA and accelerometery data. Overall, 23.5% were classified as sufficiently active by both PA measures, while 38.2% of those classified as sufficiently active based on self-reported PA did not meet the criteria using objective monitoring (sensitivity of GPAQ: 74%, specificity: 44%). Among participants who were classified as sufficiently active according to the questionnaire (n=717), participants from Ghana (OR=3.2, p<0.01), SA (OR=5.3, p<0.01), Jamaica (OR=2.3, p=0.01), and Seychelles (OR=1.9, p=0.03) were more likely to be similarly classified as sufficiently active based on accelerometry, compared to those from the US, and men (OR=2.9, p<0.01) more likely than women. Finally, obese participants had 0.4 times lower adjusted odds to be similarly classified as sufficiently active using objective measures compared to non-obese participants (p<0.01). Conclusion: Our findings further underscore difficulties in interpreting self-reported PA, which may furthermore vary across different settings and socio-economic settings. Given the importance of PA interventions for reducing the NCD burden, future research should explore tailored approaches to better understand self-report PA accuracy and to better assess the dose-response between PA and cardiometabolic risk.
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.