Cargando…
Validity of instruments to measure physical activity may be questionable due to a lack of conceptual frameworks: a systematic review
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. Thi...
Autores principales: | , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
BioMed Central
2011
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3215640/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21967887 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1477-7525-9-86 |
_version_ | 1782216408550080512 |
---|---|
author | Gimeno-Santos, Elena Frei, Anja Dobbels, Fabienne Rüdell, Katja Puhan, Milo A Garcia-Aymerich, Judith |
author_facet | Gimeno-Santos, Elena Frei, Anja Dobbels, Fabienne Rüdell, Katja Puhan, Milo A Garcia-Aymerich, Judith |
author_sort | Gimeno-Santos, Elena |
collection | PubMed |
description | 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. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-3215640 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2011 |
publisher | BioMed Central |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-32156402011-11-15 Validity of instruments to measure physical activity may be questionable due to a lack of conceptual frameworks: a systematic review Gimeno-Santos, Elena Frei, Anja Dobbels, Fabienne Rüdell, Katja Puhan, Milo A Garcia-Aymerich, Judith Health Qual Life Outcomes Review 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. BioMed Central 2011-10-03 /pmc/articles/PMC3215640/ /pubmed/21967887 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1477-7525-9-86 Text en Copyright ©2011 Gimeno-Santos et al; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0 This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. |
spellingShingle | Review Gimeno-Santos, Elena Frei, Anja Dobbels, Fabienne Rüdell, Katja Puhan, Milo A Garcia-Aymerich, Judith Validity of instruments to measure physical activity may be questionable due to a lack of conceptual frameworks: a systematic review |
title | Validity of instruments to measure physical activity may be questionable due to a lack of conceptual frameworks: a systematic review |
title_full | Validity of instruments to measure physical activity may be questionable due to a lack of conceptual frameworks: a systematic review |
title_fullStr | Validity of instruments to measure physical activity may be questionable due to a lack of conceptual frameworks: a systematic review |
title_full_unstemmed | Validity of instruments to measure physical activity may be questionable due to a lack of conceptual frameworks: a systematic review |
title_short | Validity of instruments to measure physical activity may be questionable due to a lack of conceptual frameworks: a systematic review |
title_sort | validity of instruments to measure physical activity may be questionable due to a lack of conceptual frameworks: a systematic review |
topic | Review |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3215640/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21967887 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1477-7525-9-86 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT gimenosantoselena validityofinstrumentstomeasurephysicalactivitymaybequestionableduetoalackofconceptualframeworksasystematicreview AT freianja validityofinstrumentstomeasurephysicalactivitymaybequestionableduetoalackofconceptualframeworksasystematicreview AT dobbelsfabienne validityofinstrumentstomeasurephysicalactivitymaybequestionableduetoalackofconceptualframeworksasystematicreview AT rudellkatja validityofinstrumentstomeasurephysicalactivitymaybequestionableduetoalackofconceptualframeworksasystematicreview AT puhanmiloa validityofinstrumentstomeasurephysicalactivitymaybequestionableduetoalackofconceptualframeworksasystematicreview AT garciaaymerichjudith validityofinstrumentstomeasurephysicalactivitymaybequestionableduetoalackofconceptualframeworksasystematicreview |