Key result
The Helsinki Physical Activity Questionnaire correlates poorly with accelerometers, identifying only 64% of inactive subjects.
Why the study?
Does the Helsinki Physical Activity Questionnaire accurately identify physically inactive people compared to accelerometer data in healthy adults?
Cross-Sectional (n=85)
Does the Helsinki Physical Activity Questionnaire accurately identify physically inactive people compared to accelerometer data in healthy adults?
p-value: p=< 0.001
Questionnaires for screening physical activity have poor correlation with accelerometer data, suggesting device-based measurements are recommended if sensitive or specific assessment is needed.
The Helsinki questionnaire's poor accelerometer correlation cautions against sole use for inactivity screening; leaves open refinement of self-report tools.
Objective: Insufficient physical activity (PA) is a well-known risk factor for many non-communicable diseases. This study aimed to develop a screening tool, the Helsinki Physical Activity Questionnaire (HPAQ), to identify physically inactive people at the population level and to help social and health care professionals promote PA among people at risk. Methods: Eighty-five healthy adults wore a hip-worn accelerometer for 7 days, after which they completed several PA questionnaires. These included some novel and several validated questions on PA. The reliability of individual questions to identify physically inactive people was assessed by correlation analysis. Logistic regression analysis was used to find the combination of questions that best identified physically inactive people. Results: < 0.001) for the total amount of moderate-to-vigorous physical activity (MVPA), respectively. The best pair of questions on total PA identified 64% of all inactive subjects (MVPA < 150 min/week) based on accelerometer data. Conclusions: The questionnaires developed for screening PA have a poor correlation with the accelerometer data. The screening questionnaires roughly describe PA level among middle-aged participants, but if a more sensitive or specific method is needed, device-based measurements are recommended.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Kenttä et al. (2025) conducted a cross-sectional in Healthy adults (n=85). Helsinki Physical Activity Questionnaire (HPAQ) vs. Accelerometer (device-based measurements) was evaluated on Identification of physically inactive subjects (MVPA < 150 min/week) (p=< 0.001). The Helsinki Physical Activity Questionnaire identified 64% of inactive subjects based on accelerometer data, demonstrating poor overall correlation with device-based measurements.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: