ArticlePloS one2025
Validation of the brief physical activity assessment tool: Comparison of telephone and in-person administration.
Article in PloS one, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
We examined the reliability and validity of the Brief Physical Activity Assessment Tool (BPAAT) when administered by telephone interview compared to in-person administration. We analyzed data from the Epi-asthma study. Adult participants registered in the participating Portuguese primary health care centres (PCC) completed the BPAAT via telephone. After ~3 days (range 0-5 days), they had a face-to-face visit at their PCC and completed BPAAT using a tablet. The BPAAT classify individuals as "insufficiently active" (score 0-3) or "sufficiently active" (score 4-8). 355 subjects (60.8% female, 54[IQR 42-66] years) were included. The median BPAAT score was 2[0-4] for both methods, with a significant correlation (rho = 0.58, p<0.001). Test-retest reliability was moderate (ICC = 0.56, 95%CI 0.49-0.63). Agreement in physical activity classification was fair (71.5%, kappa = 0.31, 95%CI 0.21-0.41), with telephone administration classifying more individuals as "sufficiently active" (37.2%) than in-person (15.5%). Telephone administration of the BPAAT is a valid and reliable approach for monitoring of physical activity in the general population. However, it may slightly overestimate activity levels compared to face-to-face administration, particularly among subjects aged 65 years and older.
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.