McLean Sionnadh, Holden Melanie A, Potia Tanzila, Gee Melanie, Mallett Ross, Bhanbhro Sadiq, Parsons Helen, Haywood Kirstie
Faculty of Health and Wellbeing, Collegiate Campus, Sheffield Hallam University, Sheffield.
Arthritis Research UK Primary Care Centre, Keele University, Keele.
Rheumatology (Oxford). 2017 Mar 1;56(3):426-438. doi: 10.1093/rheumatology/kew422.
To recommend robust and relevant measures of exercise adherence for application in the musculoskeletal field.
A systematic review of measures was conducted in two phases. Phase 1 sought to identify all reproducible measures used to assess exercise adherence in a musculoskeletal setting. Phase 2 identified published evidence of measurement and practical properties of identified measures. Eight databases were searched (from inception to February 2016). Study quality was assessed against the Consensus-based Standards for the Selection of Health Measurement Instruments guidelines. Measurement quality was assessed against accepted standards.
Phase 1: from 8511 records, 326 full-text articles were reviewed; 45 reproducible measures were identified. Phase 2: from 2977 records, 110 full-text articles were assessed for eligibility; 10 articles provided evidence of measurement/practical properties for just seven measures. Six were exercise adherence-specific measures; one was specific to physical activity but applied as a measure of exercise adherence. Evidence of essential measurement and practical properties was mostly limited or not available. Assessment of relevance and comprehensiveness was largely absent and there was no evidence of patient involvement during the development or evaluation of any measure.
The significant methodological and quality issues encountered prevent the clear recommendation of any measure; future applications should be undertaken cautiously until greater clarity of the conceptual underpinning of each measure is provided and acceptable evidence of essential measurement properties is established. Future research should seek to engage collaboratively with relevant stakeholders to ensure that exercise adherence assessment is high quality, relevant and acceptable.
推荐适用于肌肉骨骼领域的可靠且相关的运动依从性测量方法。
对测量方法进行了两阶段的系统综述。第一阶段旨在识别用于评估肌肉骨骼环境中运动依从性的所有可重复测量方法。第二阶段确定了已发表的关于所识别测量方法的测量和实际特性的证据。检索了八个数据库(从创建到2016年2月)。根据基于共识的健康测量工具选择标准指南评估研究质量。根据公认标准评估测量质量。
第一阶段:从8511条记录中,审查了326篇全文文章;识别出45种可重复测量方法。第二阶段:从2977条记录中,评估了110篇全文文章的合格性;10篇文章仅为七种测量方法提供了测量/实际特性的证据。六种是特定于运动依从性的测量方法;一种特定于身体活动,但用作运动依从性的测量方法。基本测量和实际特性的证据大多有限或不存在。对相关性和全面性的评估大多缺失,并且没有证据表明在任何测量方法的开发或评估过程中有患者参与。
所遇到的重大方法学和质量问题阻碍了对任何测量方法的明确推荐;在对每种测量方法的概念基础有更清晰的认识并建立基本测量特性的可接受证据之前,未来的应用应谨慎进行。未来的研究应寻求与相关利益相关者合作,以确保运动依从性评估是高质量、相关且可接受的。