Dataset Information

An Updated Systematic Review of Childhood Physical Activity Questionnaires.

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE:This review is an update of a previous review published in 2010, and aims to summarize the available studies on the measurement properties of physical activity questionnaires for young people under the age of 18 years. METHODS:Systematic literature searches were carried out using the online PubMed, EMBASE, and SPORTDiscus databases up to 2018. Articles had to evaluate at least one of the measurement properties of a questionnaire measuring at least the duration or frequency of children's physical activity, and be published in the English language. The standardized COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments (COSMIN) checklist was used for the quality assessment of the studies. RESULTS:This review yielded 87 articles on 89 different questionnaires. Within the 87 articles, 162 studies were conducted: 103 studies assessed construct validity, 50 assessed test-retest reliability, and nine assessed measurement error. Of these studies, 38% were of poor methodological quality and 49% of fair methodological quality. A questionnaire with acceptable validity was found only for adolescents, i.e., the Greek version of the 3-Day Physical Activity Record. Questionnaires with acceptable test-retest reliability were found in all age categories, i.e., preschoolers, children, and adolescents. CONCLUSION:Unfortunately, no questionnaires were identified with conclusive evidence for both acceptable validity and reliability, partly due to the low methodological quality of the studies. This evidence is urgently needed, as current research and practice are using physical activity questionnaires of unknown validity and reliability. Therefore, recommendations for high-quality studies on measurement properties of physical activity questionnaires were formulated in the discussion. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER:CRD42016038695.

SUBMITTER: Hidding LM

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6244567 | biostudies-literature | 2018 Dec

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

An Updated Systematic Review of Childhood Physical Activity Questionnaires.

Hidding Lisan M LM Chinapaw Mai J M MJM van Poppel Mireille N M MNM Mokkink Lidwine B LB Altenburg Teatske M TM

Sports medicine (Auckland, N.Z.) 20181201 12

<h4>Background and objective</h4>This review is an update of a previous review published in 2010, and aims to summarize the available studies on the measurement properties of physical activity questionnaires for young people under the age of 18 years.<h4>Methods</h4>Systematic literature searches were carried out using the online PubMed, EMBASE, and SPORTDiscus databases up to 2018. Articles had to evaluate at least one of the measurement properties of a questionnaire measuring at least the dura ...[more]

PMID: 30298479

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundQuestionnaires provide valuable information about physical activity (PA) behaviors in older adults. Until now, no firm recommendations for the most qualified questionnaires for older adults have been provided.ObjectivesThis review is an update of a previous systematic review, published in 2010, and aims to summarize, appraise and compare the measurement properties of all available self-administered questionnaires assessing PA in older adults.MethodsWe included the articles evaluated in the previous review and conducted a new search in PubMed, Embase, and SPORTDiscus from September 2008 to December 2019, using the following inclusion criteria (1) the purpose of the study was to evaluate at least one measurement property (reliability, measurement error, hypothesis testing for construct validity, responsiveness) of a self-administered questionnaire; (2) the questionnaire intended to measure PA; (3) the questionnaire covered at least one domain of PA; (4) the study was performed in the general, healthy population of older adults; (5) the mean age of the study population was >?55 years; and (6) the article was published in English. Based on the Quality Assessment of Physical Activity Questionnaires (QAPAQ) checklist, we evaluated the quality and results of the studies. The content validity of all included questionnaires was also evaluated using the reviewers' rating. The quality of the body of evidence was evaluated for the overall construct of each questionnaire (e.g., total PA), moderate-to-vigorous physical activity (MVPA) and walking using a modified Grading of Recommendation, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) approach.ResultsIn total, 56 articles on 40 different questionnaires (14 from the previous review and 26 from the update) were included. Reliability was assessed for 22, measurement error for four and hypotheses testing for construct validity for 38 different questionnaires. Evidence for responsiveness was available for one questionnaire. For many questionnaires, only one measurement property was assessed in only a single study. Sufficient content validity was considered for 22 questionnaires. All questionnaires displayed large measurement errors. Only versions of two questionnaires showed both sufficient reliability and hypotheses testing for construct validity, namely the Physical Activity Scale for the Elderly (PASE; English version, Turkish version) for the assessment of total PA, and the Physical Activity and Sedentary Behavior Questionnaire (PASB-Q; English version) for the assessment of MVPA. The quality of evidence for these results ranged from very low to high.ConclusionsUntil more high-quality evidence is available, we recommend the PASE for measuring total PA and the PASB-Q for measuring MVPA in older adults. However, they are not equally qualified among different languages. Future studies on the most promising questionnaires should cover all relevant measurement properties. We recommend using and improving existing PA questionnaires-instead of developing new ones-and considering the strengths and weaknesses of each PA measurement instrument for a particular purpose.

Project description:BackgroundIn order to assess physical activity (PA) during pregnancy, it is important to choose the instrument with the best measurement properties.ObjectivesTo systematically summarize, appraise, and compare the measurement properties of all self-administered questionnaires assessing PA in pregnancy.MethodsWe searched PubMed, Embase, and SPORTDiscus with the following inclusion criteria: (i) the study reported at least one measurement property (reliability, criterion validity, construct validity, responsiveness) of a self-administered questionnaire; (ii) the questionnaire intended to measure PA; (iii) the questionnaire was evaluated in healthy pregnant women; and (iv) the study was published in English. We evaluated results, quality of individual studies, and quality of evidence using a standardized checklist (Quality Assessment of Physical Activity Questionnaires [QAPAQ]) and the GRADE (Grading of Recommendation, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation) approach.ResultsSeventeen articles, reporting 18 studies of 11 different PA questionnaires (17 versions), were included. Most questionnaire versions showed insufficient measurement properties. Only the French and Turkish versions of the Pregnancy Physical Activity Questionnaire (PPAQ) showed both sufficient reliability and construct validity. However, all versions of the PPAQ pooled together showed insufficient construct validity. The quality of individual studies was usually high for reliability but varied considerably for construct validity. Overall, the quality of evidence was very low to moderate.ConclusionsWe recommend the PPAQ to assess PA in pregnancy, although the pooled results revealed insufficient construct validity. The lack of appropriate standards in data collection and processing criteria for objective devices in measuring PA during pregnancy attenuates the quality of evidence. Therefore, research on the validity of comparison instruments in pregnancy followed by consensus on validation reference criteria and standards of PA measurement is needed.

Project description:Adolescence is considered a fundamental time to promote change. During this time, young people consolidate their social and individual identity. By influencing positive changes, chronic diseases can be avoided, delayed or modified in the future. The use of valid and reliable questionnaires is an optimal resource for gathering information and thus useful for this study. The objectives of the study were to: (1). identify the questionnaires that assess self-esteem/self-concept, self-perception, physical exercise and lifestyle of adolescents; (2). analyse the psychometric measures of the questionnaires used to assess the self-esteem/self-concept, self-perception, physical exercise and lifestyle of adolescents; and (3). determine which questionnaires are the most reliable and valid for assessing the self-esteem/self-concept, self-perception, physical exercise and lifestyle of adolescents. A bibliographic search was carried out in the following databases: Virtual Health Library, Cochrane, Medline, Cuiden, Scielo, Dialnet, PubMed and Ministry of Health, Consumption and Social Welfare following the PICO method. The recommendations of the PRISMA statement were followed. A total of 71 scientific articles were collected. Within the self-perception/self-concept questionnaires, the Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale stands out for being an optimal and widely used resource in adolescents. Regarding the questionnaires that evaluate self-perception, the General Health Questionnaire is the most used; it is used in numerous national health surveys in different countries. The Physical Activity Questionnaire for Adolescents ranks first with respect to the rest of the tools. It is a widely used resource internationally and provides enough information on the physical activity carried out by the subject in a given week. Although there are several questionnaires that measure lifestyle, the Health Behavior in School-aged Children instrument was selected. This instrument is at the European level and involves the collaboration of 48 countries and allows us to compare the lifestyle habits of adolescents from different countries. The questionnaire that stands out in the assessment of self-esteem/self-concept is the Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale. The General Health Questionnaire has been selected as the best tool for assessing self-perception. To measure physical exercise, the Physical Activity Questionnaire for Adolescents is identified as the ideal instrument because it is widely used and can be completed quickly. Regarding lifestyle, the Health Behavior in School aged Children is shown to be an effective instrument in assessing lifestyle.

Project description:BackgroundPhysical activity (PA) may have an impact on digestive-system cancer (DSC) by improving insulin sensitivity and anticancer immune function and by reducing the exposure of the digestive tract to carcinogens by stimulating gastrointestinal motility, thus reducing transit time. The current study aimed to determine the effect of PA on different types of DSC via a systematic review and meta-analysis.MethodsIn accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines, we searched for relevant studies in PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, and China National Knowledge Infrastructure. Using a random effects model, the relationship between PA and different types of DSC was analyzed.ResultsThe data used for meta-analysis were derived from 161 risk estimates in 47 studies involving 5,797,768 participants and 55,162 cases. We assessed the pooled associations between high vs. low PA levels and the risk of DSC (risk ratio (RR)  = 0.82, 95% confidence interval (95%CI): 0.79-0.85), colon cancer (RR = 0.81, 95%CI: 0.76-0.87), rectal cancer (RR = 0.88, 95%CI: 0.80-0.98), colorectal cancer (RR = 0.77, 95%CI: 0.69-0.85), gallbladder cancer (RR = 0.79, 95%CI: 0.64-0.98), gastric cancer (RR = 0.83, 95%CI: 0.76-0.91), liver cancer (RR = 0.73, 0.60-0.89), oropharyngeal cancer (RR = 0.79, 95%CI: 0.72-0.87), and pancreatic cancer (RR = 0.85, 95%CI: 0.78-0.93). The findings were comparable between case-control studies (RR = 0.73, 95%CI: 0.68-0.78) and prospective cohort studies (RR = 0.88, 95%CI: 0.80-0.91). The meta-analysis of 9 studies reporting low, moderate, and high PA levels, with 17 risk estimates, showed that compared to low PA, moderate PA may also reduce the risk of DSC (RR = 0.89, 95%CI: 0.80-1.00), while compared to moderate PA, high PA seemed to slightly increase the risk of DSC, although the results were not statistically significant (RR = 1.11, 95%CI: 0.94-1.32). In addition, limited evidence from 5 studies suggested that meeting the international PA guidelines might not significantly reduce the risk of DSC (RR = 0.96, 95%CI: 0.91-1.02).ConclusionCompared to previous research, this systematic review has provided more comprehensive information about the inverse relationship between PA and DSC risk. The updated evidence from the current meta-analysis indicates that a moderate-to-high PA level is a common protective factor that can significantly lower the overall risk of DSC. However, the reduction rate for specific cancers may vary. In addition, limited evidence suggests that meeting the international PA guidelines might not significantly reduce the risk of DSC. Thus, future studies must be conducted to determine the optimal dosage, frequency, intensity, and duration of PA required to reduce DSC risk effectively.

Project description:BackgroundQuestionnaires remain one of the most common forms of data collection in epidemiology, psychology and other human-sciences. However, results can be badly affected by non-response. One way to potentially reduce non-response is by sending potential study participants advance communication. The last systematic review to examine the effect of questionnaire pre-notification on response is 10 years old, and lacked a risk of bias assessment.ObjectivesUpdate the section of the Cochrane systematic review, Edwards et al. (2009), on pre-notification to include 1) recently published studies, 2) an assessment of risk of bias, 3) Explore if heterogeneity is reduced by: delay between pre-contact and questionnaire delivery, the method of pre-contact, if pre-contact and questionnaire delivery differ, if the pre-contact includes a foot-in-the-door manipulation, and study's the risk of bias.MethodsInclusion criteria: population: any population, intervention: comparison of some type of pre-notification, comparison group: no pre-notification, outcome: response rates.Study designrandomised controlled trails.Exclusion criteriaNA.Data sourcesStudies which cited or were included in Edwards et al. (2009); We additionally searched: CINAHL, Web of Science, PsycInfo, MEDLINE, EconLit, EMBASE, Cochrane Central, Cochrane CMR, ERIC, and Sociological Abstracts. The searches were implemented in June 2018 and May 2021. Study screening: a single reviewer screened studies, with a random 10% sample independently screened to ascertain accuracy.Data extractiondata was extracted by a single reviewer twice, with a week between each extraction. Risk of Bias: within studies bias was assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool (ROB1) by a single unblinded reviewer, across studies bias was assessed using funnel plots. Synthesis Method: study results were meta-analysed with a random effects model using the final response rate as the outcome. Evaluation of Uncertainty: Uncertainty was evaluated using the GRADE approach.ResultsOne hundred seven trials were included with 211,802 participants. Over-all pre-notification increased response, OR = 1.33 (95% CI: 1.20-1.47). However, there was a large amount of heterogeneity (I2 = 97.1%), which was not explained by the subgroup analyses. In addition, when studies at high or unclear risk of bias were excluded the effect was to reduced OR = 1.09 (95% CI: 0.99-1.20). Because of the large amount of heterogeneity, even after restricting to low risk of bias studies, there is still moderate uncertainty in these results.ConclusionsUsing the GRADE evaluation, this review finds moderate evidence that pre-notification may not have an effect on response rates.FundingEconomic and Social Research Council.PreregistrationNone.

Dataset Information

An Updated Systematic Review of Childhood Physical Activity Questionnaires.

Publications

An Updated Systematic Review of Childhood Physical Activity Questionnaires.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets