Screening for physical activity in family practice - Evaluation of two brief assessment tools

Background: Physical activity (PA) is relevant to the prevention and management of many health conditions in family practice. There is a need for an efficient, reliable, and valid assessment tool to identify patients in need of PA interventions. Methods: Twenty-eight family physicians in three Australian cities assessed the PA of their adult patients during 2004 using either a two- (2Q) or three-question (3Q) assessment. This was administered again approximately 3 days later to evaluate test-retest reliability. Concurrent validity was evaluated by measuring agreement with the Active Australia Questionnaire, and criterion validity by comparison with 7-day Computer Science Applications, Inc. (CSA) accelerometer counts. Results: A total of 509 patients participated, with 428 (84%) completing a repeat assessment, and 415 (82%) accelerometer monitoring. The brief assessments had moderate test-retest reliability (2Q k = 58.0%, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 47.2-68.8%; 3Q k = 55.6%, 95% CI = 43.8-67.4%); fair to moderate concurrent validity (2Q k = 46.7%, 95% CI = 35.657.9%; 3Q k = 38.7%, 95% CI = 26.4-51.1%); and poor to fair criterion validity (2Q k = 18.2%, 95% CI = 3.9-32.6%; 3Q k = 24.3%, 95% CI = 11.6-36.9%) for identifying patients as sufficiently active. A four-level scale of PA derived from the PA assessments was significantly correlated with accelerometer minutes (2Q rho = 0.39, 95% CI = 0.28-0.49; 3Q rho = 0.31, 95% CI = 0.18-0.43). Physicians reported that the assessments took I to 2 minutes to complete. Conclusions: Both PA assessments were feasible to use in family practice, and were suitable for identifying the least active patients. The 2Q assessment was preferred by clinicians and may be most appropriate for dissemination.

The properties of the International Classification of the External Cause of Injury when used as an instrument for injury prevention research

Objective: To demonstrate properties of the International Classification of the External Cause of Injury (ICECI) as a tool for use in injury prevention research. Methods: The Childhood Injury Prevention Study (CHIPS) is a prospective longitudinal follow up study of a cohort of 871 children 5 - 12 years of age, with a nested case crossover component. The ICECI is the latest tool in the International Classification of Diseases (ICD) family and has been designed to improve the precision of coding injury events. The details of all injury events recorded in the study, as well as all measured injury related exposures, were coded using the ICECI. This paper reports a substudy on the utility and practicability of using the ICECI in the CHIPS to record exposures. Interrater reliability was quantified for a sample of injured participants using the Kappa statistic to measure concordance between codes independently coded by two research staff. Results: There were 767 diaries collected at baseline and event details from 563 injuries and exposure details from injury crossover periods. There were no event, location, or activity details which could not be coded using the ICECI. Kappa statistics for concordance between raters within each of the dimensions ranged from 0.31 to 0.93 for the injury events and 0.94 and 0.97 for activity and location in the control periods. Discussion: This study represents the first detailed account of the properties of the ICECI revealed by its use in a primary analytic epidemiological study of injury prevention. The results of this study provide considerable support for the ICECI and its further use.