Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:
Full metadata record
DC FieldValueLanguage
dc.contributor.authorLimb, ES-
dc.contributor.authorAhmad, S-
dc.contributor.authorCook, DG-
dc.contributor.authorKerry, SM-
dc.contributor.authorEkelund, U-
dc.contributor.authorWhincup, PH-
dc.contributor.authorVictor, CR-
dc.contributor.authorIliffe, S-
dc.contributor.authorUssher, M-
dc.contributor.authorFox-Rushby, J-
dc.contributor.authorFurness, C-
dc.contributor.authorIbison, J-
dc.contributor.authorDewilde, S-
dc.contributor.authorHarris, T-
dc.identifier.citationThe international journal of behavioral nutrition and physical activity, 2019, 16 (10), pp. 1 - 11en_US
dc.description.abstractBackground: Few trials have compared estimates of change in physical activity (PA) levels using self-reported and objective PA measures when evaluating trial outcomes. The PACE-UP trial offered the opportunity to assess this, using the self-administered International Physical Activity Questionnaire (IPAQ) and waist-worn accelerometry. Methods: The PACE-UP trial (N=1023) compared usual care (n=338) with two pedometer-based walking interventions, by post (n=339) or with nurse support (n=346). Participants wore an accelerometer at baseline and 12months and completed IPAQ for the same 7-day periods. Main outcomes were weekly minutes, all in ≥10min bouts as per UK PA guidelines of: i) accelerometer moderate-to-vigorous PA (Acc-MVPA) ii) IPAQ moderate+vigorous PA (IPAQ-MVPA) and iii) IPAQ walking (IPAQ-Walk). For each outcome, 12month values were regressed on baseline to estimate change. Results: Analyses were restricted to 655 (64%) participants who provided data on all outcomes at baseline and 12 months. Both intervention groups significantly increased their accelerometry MVPA minutes/week compared with control: postal group 42 (95% CI 22, 61), nurse group 43 (95% CI 24, 63). IPAQ-Walk minutes/week also increased: postal 57 (95% CI 2, 112), nurse 43 (95% CI -11, 97) but IPAQ-MVPA minutes/week showed non-significant decreases: postal -11 (95% CI -65, 42), nurse -34 (95% CI -87, 19). Conclusions: Our results demonstrate the necessity of using a questionnaire focussing on the activities being altered, as with IPAQ-Walk questions. Even then, the change in PA was estimated with far less precision than with accelerometry. Accelerometry is preferred to self-report measurement, minimising bias and improving precision when assessing effects of a walking intervention.en_US
dc.format.extent1 - 11-
dc.subjectPrimary careen_US
dc.titleMeasuring change in trials of physical activity interventions: a comparison of self-report questionnaire and accelerometry within the PACE-UP trialen_US
dc.relation.isPartOfThe international journal of behavioral nutrition and physical activity-
Appears in Collections:Dept of Clinical Sciences Research Papers

Files in This Item:
File Description SizeFormat 
FullText.pdf613.17 kBAdobe PDFView/Open

Items in BURA are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.