Reliability and Validity of Patient-Reported, Rater-Based, and Hybrid Physical Activity Assessments in COPD: A Systematic Review
dc.contributor.author | Gore, Shweta | |
dc.contributor.author | Chindam, Tirupathi | |
dc.contributor.author | Goldberg, Allon | |
dc.contributor.author | Huang, Min H | |
dc.contributor.author | Shoemaker, Michael | |
dc.contributor.author | Blackwood, Jennifer | |
dc.coverage.spatial | England | |
dc.date.accessioned | 2022-01-20T19:51:55Z | |
dc.date.available | 2022-01-20T19:51:55Z | |
dc.date.issued | 2020-10-15 | |
dc.identifier.issn | 1541-2555 | |
dc.identifier.issn | 1541-2563 | |
dc.identifier.uri | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33054418 | |
dc.identifier.uri | https://hdl.handle.net/2027.42/171449 | en |
dc.description.abstract | Selecting valid and reliable PA assessments in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is crucial to ensure that the information obtained is accurate, valuable, and meaningful. The purpose of this systematic review was to compare the validity and reliability among PA assessments in COPD. An electronic database search of PubMed and CINAHL was completed in December 2019 using MeSH terms on physical activity, COPD, validation, and questionnaires. Transparency in reporting was assessed with the STrengthening the Reporting of OBservational studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) checklist while methodological quality was assessed with the modified Quality Appraisal tool for Reliability studies (QAREL) for reliability studies and the Quality Appraisal of Validity Studies (QAVALS) for validity studies. The search yielded fifteen different measures. The Stanford 7-day recall (PAR) demonstrated the strongest correlations with SenseWear Armband on energy expenditure (r = 0.83; p < 0.001) and moderate correlations for time spent in activity over 3 METs (r = 0.54, p < 0.001). The Multimedia Activity Recall (MARCA) also demonstrated moderate to good correlations with both SenseWear and Actigraph GT3X + accelerometers (r = 0.66–0.74). Assisted and computerized PRO measures (PAR and MARCA) and hybrid measures (C-PPAC and D-PPAC) demonstrate better psychometric properties as compared to other subjective measures and may be considered for quantification of PA in COPD. However, observations drawn from single validation studies limit strength of recommendations and further research is needed to replicate the findings. | |
dc.format.medium | Print-Electronic | |
dc.language | eng | |
dc.publisher | Informa UK Limited | |
dc.subject | Measurement properties | |
dc.subject | activity assessment | |
dc.subject | chronic lung disease | |
dc.subject | Exercise | |
dc.subject | Humans | |
dc.subject | Pulmonary Disease, Chronic Obstructive | |
dc.subject | Reproducibility of Results | |
dc.subject | Self Report | |
dc.title | Reliability and Validity of Patient-Reported, Rater-Based, and Hybrid Physical Activity Assessments in COPD: A Systematic Review | |
dc.type | Article | |
dc.identifier.pmid | 33054418 | |
dc.description.bitstreamurl | http://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/171449/2/Reliability and Validity of Patient Reported Rater Based and Hybrid Physical Activity Assessments in COPD A Systematic Review.pdf | |
dc.identifier.doi | 10.1080/15412555.2020.1830963 | |
dc.identifier.doi | https://dx.doi.org/10.7302/3961 | |
dc.identifier.source | COPD Journal of Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease | |
dc.description.version | Published version | |
dc.date.updated | 2022-01-20T19:51:53Z | |
dc.identifier.orcid | 0000-0003-1514-2186 | |
dc.identifier.volume | 17 | |
dc.identifier.issue | 6 | |
dc.identifier.startpage | 1 | |
dc.identifier.endpage | 11 | |
dc.identifier.name-orcid | Gore, Shweta | |
dc.identifier.name-orcid | Chindam, Tirupathi | |
dc.identifier.name-orcid | Goldberg, Allon | |
dc.identifier.name-orcid | Huang, Min H | |
dc.identifier.name-orcid | Shoemaker, Michael | |
dc.identifier.name-orcid | Blackwood, Jennifer; 0000-0003-1514-2186 | |
dc.working.doi | 10.7302/3961 | en |
dc.owningcollname | Health Sciences, College of (UM-Flint) |
Files in this item
Remediation of Harmful Language
The University of Michigan Library aims to describe library materials in a way that respects the people and communities who create, use, and are represented in our collections. Report harmful or offensive language in catalog records, finding aids, or elsewhere in our collections anonymously through our metadata feedback form. More information at Remediation of Harmful Language.
Accessibility
If you are unable to use this file in its current format, please select the Contact Us link and we can modify it to make it more accessible to you.