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...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: McLean, Sionnadh, Holden, Melanie A., Potia, Tanzila, Gee, Melanie, Mallett, Ross, Bhanbhro, Sadiq, Parsons, Helen, Haywood, Kirstie
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