Suppr超能文献

[如何在初级保健中识别身体活动不足:加泰罗尼亚语和西班牙语版两份简短问卷的验证]

[How to identify physical inactivity in primary care: validation of the Catalan and Spanish versions of 2 short questionnaires].

作者信息

Puig Ribera Anna, Peña Chimenis Oscar, Romaguera Bosch Montserrat, Duran Bellido Eulàlia, Heras Tebar Antonio, Solà Gonfaus Mercè, Sarmiento Cruz Manuel, Cid Cantarero Amanda

机构信息

Universitat de Vic, Barcelona, España; Grup d'Exercici Físic i Salut, Societat Catalana de Medicina Familiar i Comunitària (CAMFiC); Institut d'Investigació d'Atenció Primària (IDIAP) Jordi Gol, Barcelona, Spain.

出版信息

Aten Primaria. 2012 Aug;44(8):485-93. doi: 10.1016/j.aprim.2012.01.005. Epub 2012 Mar 29.

Abstract

OBJECTIVE

The Brief Physical Activity Assessment Tool (BPAAT) and the General Practice Physical Activity Questionnaire (GPPAQ) are valid and reliable assessment tools to identify "inactive" patients in primary care. No similar tools exist for the Spanish population. The study aimed to evaluate the reliability and validity of the Catalan and Spanish versions (CBPAAT-CGPPAQ; CBPAAT-EGPPAQ) of such tools.

DESIGN

Validation study of the linguistic and cultural adaptation of two questionnaires into Catalan/Spanish.

SETTING

Centres of Primary Care.

PARTICIPANTS

The load for administering the questionnaires was evaluated by 7 general practitioners and 44 patients. Construct validity and reliability was assessed in 105 patients (58 years old±20; 37% men) without any contraindication for physical activity (PA).

MAIN VARIABLES

After carrying out the translation and back-translation, construct validity was assessed against the International Physical Activity Questionnaire (IPAQ short form). Reliability was assessed administering the questionnaires again within 14 to 28 days.

RESULTS

The validity of the CBPAAT-EBPAAT showed a moderate percentage agreement, correctly classifying over 80% and 83% of the "inactive" cases. Reliability was also good, correctly classifying over 86% and 88% of the cases. The validity of the CGPPAQ-EGPPAQ showed a moderate percentage agreement, correctly classifying over 70% and 60% of the "inactive" cases. Reliability was good, correctly classifying over 82% and 72% of the cases.

CONCLUSIONS

The CBPAAT-CGPPAQ and EBPAAT-EGPPAQ are valid instruments to identify "inactive" patients that should receive advice on PA.

摘要

目的

简短身体活动评估工具(BPAAT)和全科医疗身体活动问卷(GPPAQ)是用于在初级保健中识别“不活跃”患者的有效且可靠的评估工具。西班牙人群中尚无类似工具。本研究旨在评估此类工具的加泰罗尼亚语和西班牙语版本(CBPAAT - CGPPAQ;CBPAAT - EGPPAQ)的可靠性和有效性。

设计

将两份问卷进行语言和文化适应转化为加泰罗尼亚语/西班牙语的验证研究。

地点

初级保健中心。

参与者

7名全科医生和44名患者对问卷的管理负担进行了评估。在105名无任何身体活动(PA)禁忌证的患者(年龄58岁±20;37%为男性)中评估了结构效度和信度。

主要变量

在进行翻译和回译后,对照国际身体活动问卷(IPAQ简表)评估结构效度。在14至28天内再次发放问卷评估信度。

结果

CBPAAT - EBPAAT的效度显示出中等程度的百分比一致性,正确分类超过80%和83%的“不活跃”病例。信度也良好,正确分类超过86%和88%的病例。CGPPAQ - EGPPAQ的效度显示出中等程度的百分比一致性,正确分类超过70%和60%的“不活跃”病例。信度良好,正确分类超过82%和72%的病例。

结论

CBPAAT - CGPPAQ和EBPAAT - EGPPAQ是识别应接受PA建议的“不活跃”患者的有效工具。

相似文献

1
[How to identify physical inactivity in primary care: validation of the Catalan and Spanish versions of 2 short questionnaires].
Aten Primaria. 2012 Aug;44(8):485-93. doi: 10.1016/j.aprim.2012.01.005. Epub 2012 Mar 29.
3
Screening Physical Activity in Family Practice: Validity of the Spanish Version of a Brief Physical Activity Questionnaire.
PLoS One. 2015 Sep 17;10(9):e0136870. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0136870. eCollection 2015.
4
Spanish and Catalan translation, cultural adaptation and validation of the Picker Patient Experience Questionnaire-15.
J Healthc Qual Res. 2018 Jan-Feb;33(1):10-17. doi: 10.1016/j.cali.2017.12.004. Epub 2018 Feb 14.
6
[Psychometric analysis of the Spanish and Catalan versions of a questionnaire for hypoglycemia awareness].
Med Clin (Barc). 2015 May 21;144(10):440-4. doi: 10.1016/j.medcli.2013.11.036. Epub 2014 Feb 13.
8
A systematic review of the physical activity assessment tools used in primary care.
Fam Pract. 2017 Aug 1;34(4):384-391. doi: 10.1093/fampra/cmx011.

引用本文的文献

1
[From global strategy to local consultation: A future vision of physical activity in primary care].
Aten Primaria. 2025 Aug;57(8):103321. doi: 10.1016/j.aprim.2025.103321. Epub 2025 Jun 30.
3
The utility of brief instruments for depression screening in dialysis patients.
Clin Kidney J. 2024 Nov 22;18(1):sfae369. doi: 10.1093/ckj/sfae369. eCollection 2025 Jan.
4
[Prevalence of physical inactivity and risk of sarcopenia in primary care. Cross-sectional study].
Aten Primaria. 2024 Nov;56(11):102993. doi: 10.1016/j.aprim.2024.102993. Epub 2024 Jun 13.
6
Cardiovascular risk in subjects over 55 years of age and cognitive performance after five years. NEDICES2-RISK study. Study protocol.
PLoS One. 2022 Nov 28;17(11):e0274589. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0274589. eCollection 2022.

本文引用的文献

2
Physical activity questionnaires for adults: a systematic review of measurement properties.
Sports Med. 2010 Jul 1;40(7):565-600. doi: 10.2165/11531930-000000000-00000.
3
Assessing physical activity in general practice: a disconnect between clinical practice and public health?
Br J Gen Pract. 2009 Nov;59(568):e359-67. doi: 10.3399/bjgp09X472818. Epub 2009 Sep 24.
6
Physical activity assessment: validation of a clinical assessment tool.
Am J Prev Med. 2006 Dec;31(6):484-91. doi: 10.1016/j.amepre.2006.08.021. Epub 2006 Nov 3.
7
Physical activity promotion in general practices of Barcelona: a case study.
Health Educ Res. 2006 Aug;21(4):538-48. doi: 10.1093/her/cyl008. Epub 2006 May 15.
8
[Health-related quality of life instruments and other patient-reported outcomes].
Med Clin (Barc). 2005 Dec 1;125 Suppl 1:56-60. doi: 10.1016/s0025-7753(05)72211-9.
9
Validation of a physical activity assessment tool for individuals with schizophrenia.
Schizophr Res. 2006 Feb 28;82(2-3):225-31. doi: 10.1016/j.schres.2005.10.020. Epub 2005 Dec 19.
10
Screening for physical activity in family practice: evaluation of two brief assessment tools.
Am J Prev Med. 2005 Nov;29(4):256-64. doi: 10.1016/j.amepre.2005.07.005.

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验