Estimating physical activity level: The role of domestic activities

Appropriate measures of physical activity are essential for determining the population prevalence of physical activity, for tracking trends over time, and for guiding intervention efforts. Physical activity measurement is characterised by the synthesis of information on the type, frequency, intensity, and duration of activity over a specified period. To date, emphasis in physical activity assessment has been on the measurement of leisure time physical activities. However, some domestic and transport related activities entail energy expenditures equivalent to moderate intensity of 3.0–6.0 METS1 considered to be of sufficient intensity to achieve a health benefit are yet to be included in routine population level physical activity surveillance. This leads to population estimates based only on measures of leisure time physical activities.

Physical activity promotion in primary care: Bridging the gap between research and practice

Background: Aflifle a growing literature supports the effectiveness of physical activity interventions delivered in the primary care setting, few studies have evaluated efforts to increase physician counseling on physical activity during routine practice (i.e., outside the context of controlled research). This paper reports the results of a dissemination trial of a primary care-based physical activity counseling intervention conducted within the context of a larger, multi-strategy, Australian community-based, physical activity intervention, the 10,000 Steps Rockhampton Project. Methods: All 23 general practices and 66 general practitioners (GPs, the Australian equivalent of family physicians) were invited to participate. Practice visits were made to consenting practices during which instruction in brief physical activity counseling was offered, along with physical activity promotion resources (print materials and pedometers). The evaluation, guided by the RE-AIM framework, included collection of process data, as well as pre-and post-inteivention data from a mailed GP survey, and data from the larger project's random-digit-dialed, community-based, cross-sectional telephone survey that was conducted in Rockhampton and a comparison community, Results: Ninety-one percent of practices were visited by 10,000 Steps staff and agreed to participate, with 58% of GPs present during the visits. General practitioner survey response rates were 67% (n =44/66 at baseline) and 71% (n =37/52, at 14-month follow-up). At follow-up, 62% had displayed the poster, 81% were using the brochures, and 70% had loaned pedometers to patients, although the number loaned was relatively small. No change was seen in GP self-report of the percentage of patients counseled on physical activity. However, data from the telephone surveys showed a 31% increase in the likelihood of recalling GP advice on physical activity in Rockhampton (95% confidence interval [CI]=1.11-1.54) compared to a 16% decrease (95% CI=0.68-1.04) in the comparison community. Conclusions: This dissemination study achieved high rates of GP uptake, reasonable levels of implementation, and a significant increase in the number of community residents counseled on physical activity. These results suggest that evidence-based primary care physical activity counseling protocols can be translated into routine practice, although the initial and ongoing investment of time to develop partnerships with relevant healthcare organizations, and the interest generated by the overall 10,000 Steps program should not be underestimated. ((C) 2004 American journal of Preventive Medicine.

Minimal disease activity for rheumatoid arthritis: A preliminary definition

Agreement on response criteria in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) has allowed better standardization and interpretation of clinical trial reports. With recent advances in therapy, the proportion of patients achieving a satisfactory state of minimal disease activity (MDA) is becoming a more important measure with which to compare different treatment strategies. The threshold for MDA is between high disease activity and remission and, by definition, anyone in remission will also be in MDA. True remission is still rare in RA; in addition, the American College of Rheumatology definition is difficult to apply in the context of trials. Participants at OMERACT 6 in 2002 agreed on a conceptual definition of minimal disease activity (MDA): "that state of disease activity deemed a useful target of treatment by both the patient and the physician, given current treatment possibilities and limitations." To prepare for a preliminary operational definition of MDA for use in clinical trials, we asked rheumatologists to assess 60 patient profiles describing real RA patients seen in routine clinical practice. Based on their responses, several candidate definitions for MDA were designed and discussed at the OMERACT 7 in 2004. Feedback from participants and additional on-site analyses in a cross-sectional database allowed the formulation of 2 preliminary, equivalent definitions of MDA: one based on the Disease Activity Score 28 (DAS28) index, and one based on meeting cutpoints in 5 out the 7 WHO/ILAR core set measures. Researchers applying these definitions first need to choose whether to use the DAS28 or the core set definition, because although each selects a similar proportion in a population, these are not always the same patients. In both MDA definitions, an initial decision node places all patients in MDA who have a tender joint count of 0 and a swollen joint count of 0, and an erythrocyte sedimentation rate (ESR) no greater than 10 mm. If this condition is not met: center dot The DAS28 definition places patients in MDA when DAS28

Reliability and validity of a brief physical activity assessment for use by family doctors

Objective: To evaluate the reliability and validity of a brief physical activity assessment tool suitable for doctors to use to identify inactive patients in the primary care setting. Methods: Volunteer family doctors (n = 8) screened consenting patients (n = 75) for physical activity participation using a brief physical activity assessment tool. Inter-rater reliability was assessed within one week (n = 71). Validity was assessed against an objective physical activity monitor (computer science and applications accelerometer; n = 42). Results: The brief physical activity assessment tool produced repeatable estimates of sufficient total physical activity, correctly classifying over 76% of cases (kappa 0.53, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.33 to 0.72). The validity coefficient was reasonable (kappa 0.40, 95% CI 0.12 to 0.69), with good percentage agreement (71%). Conclusions: The brief physical activity assessment tool is a reliable instrument, with validity similar to that of more detailed self report measures of physical activity. It is a tool that can be used efficiently in routine primary healthcare services to identify insufficiently active patients who may need physical activity advice.