Cargando…
Quality and acceptability of measures of exercise adherence in musculoskeletal settings: a systematic review
Objective. To recommend robust and relevant measures of exercise adherence for application in the musculoskeletal field. Method. A systematic review of measures was conducted in two phases. Phase 1 sought to identify all reproducible measures used to assess exercise adherence in a musculoskeletal se...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Oxford University Press
2017
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5410983/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28013200 http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/rheumatology/kew422 |
_version_ | 1783232766872125440 |
---|---|
author | McLean, Sionnadh Holden, Melanie A. Potia, Tanzila Gee, Melanie Mallett, Ross Bhanbhro, Sadiq Parsons, Helen Haywood, Kirstie |
author_facet | McLean, Sionnadh Holden, Melanie A. Potia, Tanzila Gee, Melanie Mallett, Ross Bhanbhro, Sadiq Parsons, Helen Haywood, Kirstie |
author_sort | McLean, Sionnadh |
collection | PubMed |
description | Objective. To recommend robust and relevant measures of exercise adherence for application in the musculoskeletal field. Method. A systematic review of measures was conducted in two phases. Phase 1 sought to identify all reproducible measures used to assess exercise adherence in a musculoskeletal setting. Phase 2 identified published evidence of measurement and practical properties of identified measures. Eight databases were searched (from inception to February 2016). Study quality was assessed against the Consensus-based Standards for the Selection of Health Measurement Instruments guidelines. Measurement quality was assessed against accepted standards. Results. Phase 1: from 8511 records, 326 full-text articles were reviewed; 45 reproducible measures were identified. Phase 2: from 2977 records, 110 full-text articles were assessed for eligibility; 10 articles provided evidence of measurement/practical properties for just seven measures. Six were exercise adherence-specific measures; one was specific to physical activity but applied as a measure of exercise adherence. Evidence of essential measurement and practical properties was mostly limited or not available. Assessment of relevance and comprehensiveness was largely absent and there was no evidence of patient involvement during the development or evaluation of any measure. Conclusion. The significant methodological and quality issues encountered prevent the clear recommendation of any measure; future applications should be undertaken cautiously until greater clarity of the conceptual underpinning of each measure is provided and acceptable evidence of essential measurement properties is established. Future research should seek to engage collaboratively with relevant stakeholders to ensure that exercise adherence assessment is high quality, relevant and acceptable. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-5410983 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2017 |
publisher | Oxford University Press |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-54109832017-05-04 Quality and acceptability of measures of exercise adherence in musculoskeletal settings: a systematic review McLean, Sionnadh Holden, Melanie A. Potia, Tanzila Gee, Melanie Mallett, Ross Bhanbhro, Sadiq Parsons, Helen Haywood, Kirstie Rheumatology (Oxford) Clinical Science Objective. To recommend robust and relevant measures of exercise adherence for application in the musculoskeletal field. Method. A systematic review of measures was conducted in two phases. Phase 1 sought to identify all reproducible measures used to assess exercise adherence in a musculoskeletal setting. Phase 2 identified published evidence of measurement and practical properties of identified measures. Eight databases were searched (from inception to February 2016). Study quality was assessed against the Consensus-based Standards for the Selection of Health Measurement Instruments guidelines. Measurement quality was assessed against accepted standards. Results. Phase 1: from 8511 records, 326 full-text articles were reviewed; 45 reproducible measures were identified. Phase 2: from 2977 records, 110 full-text articles were assessed for eligibility; 10 articles provided evidence of measurement/practical properties for just seven measures. Six were exercise adherence-specific measures; one was specific to physical activity but applied as a measure of exercise adherence. Evidence of essential measurement and practical properties was mostly limited or not available. Assessment of relevance and comprehensiveness was largely absent and there was no evidence of patient involvement during the development or evaluation of any measure. Conclusion. The significant methodological and quality issues encountered prevent the clear recommendation of any measure; future applications should be undertaken cautiously until greater clarity of the conceptual underpinning of each measure is provided and acceptable evidence of essential measurement properties is established. Future research should seek to engage collaboratively with relevant stakeholders to ensure that exercise adherence assessment is high quality, relevant and acceptable. Oxford University Press 2017-03 2016-12-23 /pmc/articles/PMC5410983/ /pubmed/28013200 http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/rheumatology/kew422 Text en © The Author 2016. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the British Society for Rheumatology. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted reuse, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. |
spellingShingle | Clinical Science McLean, Sionnadh Holden, Melanie A. Potia, Tanzila Gee, Melanie Mallett, Ross Bhanbhro, Sadiq Parsons, Helen Haywood, Kirstie Quality and acceptability of measures of exercise adherence in musculoskeletal settings: a systematic review |
title | Quality and acceptability of measures of exercise adherence in musculoskeletal settings: a systematic review |
title_full | Quality and acceptability of measures of exercise adherence in musculoskeletal settings: a systematic review |
title_fullStr | Quality and acceptability of measures of exercise adherence in musculoskeletal settings: a systematic review |
title_full_unstemmed | Quality and acceptability of measures of exercise adherence in musculoskeletal settings: a systematic review |
title_short | Quality and acceptability of measures of exercise adherence in musculoskeletal settings: a systematic review |
title_sort | quality and acceptability of measures of exercise adherence in musculoskeletal settings: a systematic review |
topic | Clinical Science |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5410983/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28013200 http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/rheumatology/kew422 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT mcleansionnadh qualityandacceptabilityofmeasuresofexerciseadherenceinmusculoskeletalsettingsasystematicreview AT holdenmelaniea qualityandacceptabilityofmeasuresofexerciseadherenceinmusculoskeletalsettingsasystematicreview AT potiatanzila qualityandacceptabilityofmeasuresofexerciseadherenceinmusculoskeletalsettingsasystematicreview AT geemelanie qualityandacceptabilityofmeasuresofexerciseadherenceinmusculoskeletalsettingsasystematicreview AT mallettross qualityandacceptabilityofmeasuresofexerciseadherenceinmusculoskeletalsettingsasystematicreview AT bhanbhrosadiq qualityandacceptabilityofmeasuresofexerciseadherenceinmusculoskeletalsettingsasystematicreview AT parsonshelen qualityandacceptabilityofmeasuresofexerciseadherenceinmusculoskeletalsettingsasystematicreview AT haywoodkirstie qualityandacceptabilityofmeasuresofexerciseadherenceinmusculoskeletalsettingsasystematicreview |