Resourcing an evolution of roles in general-practice: A study to determine the validity and reliability of tools to assist nurses and patients to assess physical activity

Shona N. Dutton, Adrian Bauman, Sarah M. Dennis, Nicholas Zwar, Mark F. Harris

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleResearchpeer-review

2 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Traditionally, GPs have been responsible for physical activity (PA) assessment within the general practice setting. Multiple questionnaires are available to support uptake of PA assessment but less than 30% of patients are assessed. A range of barriers hamper uptake. Evidence indicates that practice nurses (PNs) and patients are resourceful members of the general practice team but have been underutilised. This study assessed the validity and reliability of two instruments for assessing PA, administered by PNs and patients. The study aimed to identify robust tool(s) to support the evolving role of PNs and patients in prevention and management strategies in general practice. A purposive sample of PNs and patients from general practices in Sydney was invited to participate. The results of the PN- or patient-administered general practice physical activity questionnaire (GPPAQ) and the three-question physical activity questionnaire (3Q) were compared against accelerometer activity. The study examined agreement in classification of PA levels according to Australian PA recommendations. Validity showed low-moderate correlations between accelerometer and GPPAQ (rho≤0.26), 3Q (rho≤0.45). Seven-day test-retest reliability intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs) were 0.82-0.95 for GGPAQ and 0.94-0.98 for 3Q. Agreement with PA recommendations was moderate for GPPAQ (kappa 0.73, 95% CI, 0.56-0.85) and fair for 3Q (kappa 0.62, 95% CI, 0.47-0.78). Although 3Q demonstrated higher correlation with accelerometry, GPPAQ demonstrated higher agreement with PA guidelines. Given GPPAQ showed reasonable rigour, it may prove useful for PN and patient use.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)505-509
Number of pages5
JournalAustralian Journal of Primary Health
Volume22
Issue number6
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 1 Jan 2016
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

Reproducibility of Results
General Practice
Nurses
Exercise
Accelerometry
Nurse's Role
Surveys and Questionnaires
Guidelines

Cite this

@article{9f81a731e26d49678745267a8184162b,
title = "Resourcing an evolution of roles in general-practice: A study to determine the validity and reliability of tools to assist nurses and patients to assess physical activity",
abstract = "Traditionally, GPs have been responsible for physical activity (PA) assessment within the general practice setting. Multiple questionnaires are available to support uptake of PA assessment but less than 30{\%} of patients are assessed. A range of barriers hamper uptake. Evidence indicates that practice nurses (PNs) and patients are resourceful members of the general practice team but have been underutilised. This study assessed the validity and reliability of two instruments for assessing PA, administered by PNs and patients. The study aimed to identify robust tool(s) to support the evolving role of PNs and patients in prevention and management strategies in general practice. A purposive sample of PNs and patients from general practices in Sydney was invited to participate. The results of the PN- or patient-administered general practice physical activity questionnaire (GPPAQ) and the three-question physical activity questionnaire (3Q) were compared against accelerometer activity. The study examined agreement in classification of PA levels according to Australian PA recommendations. Validity showed low-moderate correlations between accelerometer and GPPAQ (rho≤0.26), 3Q (rho≤0.45). Seven-day test-retest reliability intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs) were 0.82-0.95 for GGPAQ and 0.94-0.98 for 3Q. Agreement with PA recommendations was moderate for GPPAQ (kappa 0.73, 95{\%} CI, 0.56-0.85) and fair for 3Q (kappa 0.62, 95{\%} CI, 0.47-0.78). Although 3Q demonstrated higher correlation with accelerometry, GPPAQ demonstrated higher agreement with PA guidelines. Given GPPAQ showed reasonable rigour, it may prove useful for PN and patient use.",
author = "Dutton, {Shona N.} and Adrian Bauman and Dennis, {Sarah M.} and Nicholas Zwar and Harris, {Mark F.}",
year = "2016",
month = "1",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1071/PY15027",
language = "English",
volume = "22",
pages = "505--509",
journal = "Australian Journal of Primary Health - Interchange",
issn = "1324-2296",
publisher = "CSIRO",
number = "6",

}

Resourcing an evolution of roles in general-practice : A study to determine the validity and reliability of tools to assist nurses and patients to assess physical activity. / Dutton, Shona N.; Bauman, Adrian; Dennis, Sarah M.; Zwar, Nicholas; Harris, Mark F.

In: Australian Journal of Primary Health, Vol. 22, No. 6, 01.01.2016, p. 505-509.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleResearchpeer-review

TY - JOUR

T1 - Resourcing an evolution of roles in general-practice

T2 - A study to determine the validity and reliability of tools to assist nurses and patients to assess physical activity

AU - Dutton, Shona N.

AU - Bauman, Adrian

AU - Dennis, Sarah M.

AU - Zwar, Nicholas

AU - Harris, Mark F.

PY - 2016/1/1

Y1 - 2016/1/1

N2 - Traditionally, GPs have been responsible for physical activity (PA) assessment within the general practice setting. Multiple questionnaires are available to support uptake of PA assessment but less than 30% of patients are assessed. A range of barriers hamper uptake. Evidence indicates that practice nurses (PNs) and patients are resourceful members of the general practice team but have been underutilised. This study assessed the validity and reliability of two instruments for assessing PA, administered by PNs and patients. The study aimed to identify robust tool(s) to support the evolving role of PNs and patients in prevention and management strategies in general practice. A purposive sample of PNs and patients from general practices in Sydney was invited to participate. The results of the PN- or patient-administered general practice physical activity questionnaire (GPPAQ) and the three-question physical activity questionnaire (3Q) were compared against accelerometer activity. The study examined agreement in classification of PA levels according to Australian PA recommendations. Validity showed low-moderate correlations between accelerometer and GPPAQ (rho≤0.26), 3Q (rho≤0.45). Seven-day test-retest reliability intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs) were 0.82-0.95 for GGPAQ and 0.94-0.98 for 3Q. Agreement with PA recommendations was moderate for GPPAQ (kappa 0.73, 95% CI, 0.56-0.85) and fair for 3Q (kappa 0.62, 95% CI, 0.47-0.78). Although 3Q demonstrated higher correlation with accelerometry, GPPAQ demonstrated higher agreement with PA guidelines. Given GPPAQ showed reasonable rigour, it may prove useful for PN and patient use.

AB - Traditionally, GPs have been responsible for physical activity (PA) assessment within the general practice setting. Multiple questionnaires are available to support uptake of PA assessment but less than 30% of patients are assessed. A range of barriers hamper uptake. Evidence indicates that practice nurses (PNs) and patients are resourceful members of the general practice team but have been underutilised. This study assessed the validity and reliability of two instruments for assessing PA, administered by PNs and patients. The study aimed to identify robust tool(s) to support the evolving role of PNs and patients in prevention and management strategies in general practice. A purposive sample of PNs and patients from general practices in Sydney was invited to participate. The results of the PN- or patient-administered general practice physical activity questionnaire (GPPAQ) and the three-question physical activity questionnaire (3Q) were compared against accelerometer activity. The study examined agreement in classification of PA levels according to Australian PA recommendations. Validity showed low-moderate correlations between accelerometer and GPPAQ (rho≤0.26), 3Q (rho≤0.45). Seven-day test-retest reliability intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs) were 0.82-0.95 for GGPAQ and 0.94-0.98 for 3Q. Agreement with PA recommendations was moderate for GPPAQ (kappa 0.73, 95% CI, 0.56-0.85) and fair for 3Q (kappa 0.62, 95% CI, 0.47-0.78). Although 3Q demonstrated higher correlation with accelerometry, GPPAQ demonstrated higher agreement with PA guidelines. Given GPPAQ showed reasonable rigour, it may prove useful for PN and patient use.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85006356968&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1071/PY15027

DO - 10.1071/PY15027

M3 - Article

VL - 22

SP - 505

EP - 509

JO - Australian Journal of Primary Health - Interchange

JF - Australian Journal of Primary Health - Interchange

SN - 1324-2296

IS - 6

ER -