TY - JOUR
T1 - Validity of instruments to measure physical activity may be questionable due to a lack of conceptual frameworks
T2 - A systematic review
AU - Gimeno-Santos, Elena
AU - Frei, Anja
AU - Dobbels, Fabienne
AU - Rüdell, Katja
AU - Puhan, Milo A.
AU - Garcia-Aymerich, Judith
N1 - Funding Information:
This work was conducted within the PROactive project which is funded by the Innovative Medicines Initiative Joint Undertaking [IMI JU # 115011]. JGA has a researcher contract from the Instituto de Salud Carlos III (CP05/00118), Ministry of Health, Spain. CIBERESP is funded by the Instituto de Salud Carlos III, Ministry of Health, Spain. PROactive consortium: Chiesi Farmaceutici S.A.: Caterina Brindicci, Tim
PY - 2011/10/3
Y1 - 2011/10/3
N2 - Background: Guidance documents for the development and validation of patient-reported outcomes (PROs) advise the use of conceptual frameworks, which outline the structure of the concept that a PRO aims to measure. It is unknown whether currently available PROs are based on conceptual frameworks. This study, which was limited to a specific case, had the following aims: (i) to identify conceptual frameworks of physical activity in chronic respiratory patients or similar populations (chronic heart disease patients or the elderly) and (ii) to assess whether the development and validation of PROs to measure physical activity in these populations were based on a conceptual framework of physical activity.Methods: Two systematic reviews were conducted through searches of the Medline, Embase, PsycINFO, and Cinahl databases prior to January 2010.Results: In the first review, only 2 out of 581 references pertaining to physical activity in the defined populations provided a conceptual framework of physical activity in COPD patients. In the second review, out of 103 studies developing PROs to measure physical activity or related constructs, none were based on a conceptual framework of physical activity.Conclusions: These findings raise concerns about how the large body of evidence from studies that use physical activity PRO instruments should be evaluated by health care providers, guideline developers, and regulatory agencies.
AB - Background: Guidance documents for the development and validation of patient-reported outcomes (PROs) advise the use of conceptual frameworks, which outline the structure of the concept that a PRO aims to measure. It is unknown whether currently available PROs are based on conceptual frameworks. This study, which was limited to a specific case, had the following aims: (i) to identify conceptual frameworks of physical activity in chronic respiratory patients or similar populations (chronic heart disease patients or the elderly) and (ii) to assess whether the development and validation of PROs to measure physical activity in these populations were based on a conceptual framework of physical activity.Methods: Two systematic reviews were conducted through searches of the Medline, Embase, PsycINFO, and Cinahl databases prior to January 2010.Results: In the first review, only 2 out of 581 references pertaining to physical activity in the defined populations provided a conceptual framework of physical activity in COPD patients. In the second review, out of 103 studies developing PROs to measure physical activity or related constructs, none were based on a conceptual framework of physical activity.Conclusions: These findings raise concerns about how the large body of evidence from studies that use physical activity PRO instruments should be evaluated by health care providers, guideline developers, and regulatory agencies.
KW - Chronic heart disease
KW - Chronic respiratory disease
KW - Conceptual framework
KW - Elderly
KW - Patient reported outcomes
KW - Physical activity
KW - Questionnaire
KW - Systematic review
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=80053448209&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1186/1477-7525-9-86
DO - 10.1186/1477-7525-9-86
M3 - Review
C2 - 21967887
AN - SCOPUS:80053448209
SN - 1477-7525
VL - 9
JO - Health and Quality of Life Outcomes
JF - Health and Quality of Life Outcomes
M1 - 86
ER -