悉尼南部基层医疗专业人员对身体活动评估工具可接受性的探索性定性研究。

An explorative qualitative study on acceptability of physical activity assessment instruments among primary care professionals in southern Sydney.

作者信息

Dutton Shona Nicole, Dennis Sarah May, Zwar Nicholas, Harris Mark Fort

机构信息

Centre for Primary Health Care & Equity, University of NSW, Level 3, AGSM Building, Sydney, 2052, Australia.

Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Sydney, Room: O206, O Block, 75 East Street, Lidcombe, NSW, 2141, Australia.

出版信息

BMC Fam Pract. 2016 Sep 22;17(1):138. doi: 10.1186/s12875-016-0536-6.

DOI:10.1186/s12875-016-0536-6

PMID:27658950

原文链接:https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5034541/

Abstract

BACKGROUND

There are a substantial number of instruments for primary-care clinicians to assess physical-activity (PA). However, there are few studies that have explored the views of clinicians regarding comparative acceptability and ease of use. A better understanding of how clinicians perceive instruments could help overcome barriers, and inform future interventions. This study explored the acceptability of five PA-assessment instruments amongst a sample of Australian primary-care clinicians, including family-physicians (FP) and practice-nurses (PN).

METHODS

A purposive sample of FPs (N = 9) and PNs (N = 10) from eight family-practices in southern Sydney consented to participate. Stage-1 involved semi-structured interviews with participants to select preferred instruments. An analysis of the two preferred instruments was conducted as Stage-2, to identify differences in instrument purpose and content. Stage-3 involved participants using the two instruments, selected from Stage-1, for 12-weeks. At the end of this period, semi-structured interviews were repeated to explore clinician experience.

RESULTS

Clinicians indicated preferences for the GP-Physical-Activity-Questionnaire and 3-Questionnaire Physical-Activity-Questionnaire. These instruments demonstrated distinct variations in content, theoretical orientation, and outcome measures. Reasons for preference included; variations in individual clinician PA levels, knowledge in PA-assessment and instrument features.

CONCLUSION

Findings demonstrated two instruments as preferred. Reasons for preference related to internal characteristics of clinicians such as variations in the level of individual PA and external circumstances, such as instrument features.

摘要

背景

有大量工具可供基层医疗临床医生评估身体活动（PA）。然而，很少有研究探讨临床医生对这些工具相对可接受性和易用性的看法。更好地了解临床医生如何看待这些工具有助于克服障碍，并为未来的干预措施提供信息。本研究探讨了澳大利亚基层医疗临床医生（包括家庭医生（FP）和执业护士（PN））样本对五种PA评估工具的可接受性。

方法

从悉尼南部的八个家庭诊所中选取了有目的的样本，包括9名家庭医生（N = 9）和10名执业护士（N = 10），他们同意参与研究。第一阶段包括对参与者进行半结构化访谈，以选择首选工具。作为第二阶段，对两种首选工具进行了分析，以确定工具目的和内容的差异。第三阶段让参与者使用从第一阶段选出的两种工具，为期12周。在此期间结束时，再次进行半结构化访谈，以探讨临床医生的体验。