Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39854301›Full record

ArticlePloS one2025

Validation of the brief physical activity assessment tool: Comparison of telephone and in-person administration.

Rui Vilarinho, Liliana Amorim, Diana Gomes, Pedro Teixeira, Ana Alves da Silva, Janete Santos, Filipa Bernardo, Jaime Correia de Sousa, João Almeida Fonseca, Cristina Jácome

Abstract readValidation StudyComparative Study
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Article
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

10 authors.

Rui VilarinhoFP-I3ID, Escola Superior de Saúde Fernando Pessoa, Porto, Portugal.
Liliana AmorimAssociation P5 Digital Medical Center (ACMP5), Braga, Portugal.
Diana GomesCenter for Health Technology and Services Research (CINTESIS), Faculty of Medicine, University of Porto, Porto, Portugal.ORCID 0009-0002-8143-5921
Pedro TeixeiraAssociation P5 Digital Medical Center (ACMP5), Braga, Portugal.ORCID 0000-0001-6322-4923
Ana Alves da SilvaCenter for Health Technology and Services Research (CINTESIS), Faculty of Medicine, University of Porto, Porto, Portugal.
Janete SantosCenter for Health Technology and Services Research (CINTESIS), Faculty of Medicine, University of Porto, Porto, Portugal.
Filipa BernardoAstraZeneca, Lisboa, Portugal.
Jaime Correia de SousaLife and Health Sciences Research Institute (ICVS), School of Medicine, ICVS/3Bs, PT Government Associate Laboratory, University of Minho, Braga, Portugal.ORCID 0000-0001-6459-7908
João Almeida FonsecaCINTESIS@RISE, MEDCIDS, Faculty of Medicine of the University of Porto, Porto, Portugal.
Cristina JácomeCINTESIS@RISE, MEDCIDS, Faculty of Medicine of the University of Porto, Porto, Portugal.ORCID 0000-0002-1151-8791

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

ExerciseTelephoneAdultAgedAsthmaFemaleHumansInterviews as TopicMaleMiddle AgedPortugalReproducibility of ResultsSurveys and Questionnaires

Identifiers

PMID39854301
PMCPMC11760019

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.