Suppr超能文献

SQUASH 比 OBiN 更能有效地根据荷兰体力活动和综合指南对成年人进行分类。

The SQUASH was a more valid tool than the OBiN for categorizing adults according to the Dutch physical activity and the combined guideline.

机构信息

Center for Prevention and Health Services Research, National Institute for Public Health and the Environment, 3720 BA Bilthoven, The Netherlands.

出版信息

J Clin Epidemiol. 2012 Jan;65(1):73-81. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2011.05.005. Epub 2011 Aug 12.

Abstract

OBJECTIVE

To examine whether the "Short QUestionnaire to ASsess Health-enhancing physical activity" (SQUASH) and the "Injuries and Physical Activity in the Netherlands" questionnaire ("Ongevallen en Bewegen in Nederland," OBiN) were valid in assessing adherence to physical activity (PA) guidelines.

STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING

Participants (N=187) aged 20-69 years were categorized as "inactive," "semiactive," or "norm-active" according to the Dutch PA, the American College of Sports Medicine (ACSM), and the combined guideline (adhering to either or both of two other guidelines) by the questionnaires and a combined heart rate monitor and accelerometer (Actiheart). Percentage of exact agreement and maximum disagreement (difference of two categories) for the categorization between questionnaires and Actiheart was calculated.

RESULTS

The SQUASH had a significant higher agreement than the OBiN for the Dutch PA (SQUASH: 78%, OBiN: 46%; P<0.01) and combined guideline (SQUASH: 84%, OBiN: 55%; P<0.01). Both questionnaires had a low agreement regarding the ACSM guideline (SQUASH: 37%, OBiN: 34%; P=0.45). The SQUASH had a significant higher maximum disagreement than the OBiN for this guideline (SQUASH: 19.8%, OBiN 8%; P<0.01).

CONCLUSION

The SQUASH was a more valid measure than the OBiN for categorizing adults according to the Dutch PA and the combined guideline. Both questionnaires failed to correctly categorize adults according to the ACSM guideline.

摘要

目的

检验“短问卷评估促进健康的体力活动”(SQUASH)和“荷兰伤害与活动”问卷(“Ongevallen en Bewegen in Nederland”,OBiN)在评估体力活动(PA)指南依从性方面是否有效。

研究设计和设置

根据 PA 问卷、美国运动医学学院(ACSM)和综合指南(遵守其他两个指南中的一个或两个),将年龄在 20-69 岁的参与者分为“不活跃”、“半活跃”或“正常活跃”,并使用问卷和组合心率监测器和加速度计(Actiheart)进行分类。计算问卷和 Actiheart 之间分类的完全一致百分比和最大差异(两个类别的差异)。

结果

SQUASH 与 OBiN 相比,在荷兰 PA(SQUASH:78%,OBiN:46%;P<0.01)和综合指南(SQUASH:84%,OBiN:55%;P<0.01)方面具有更高的一致性。对于 ACSM 指南,两个问卷的一致性都较低(SQUASH:37%,OBiN:34%;P=0.45)。SQUASH 在这个指南方面的最大差异明显高于 OBiN(SQUASH:19.8%,OBiN 8%;P<0.01)。

结论

SQUASH 比 OBiN 更能有效地衡量成年人根据荷兰 PA 和综合指南进行分类。两个问卷都不能正确地根据 ACSM 指南对成年人进行分类。

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验