Key result
Self-reported physical activity using IPAQ significantly overestimated the proportion of participants achieving recommended activity levels compared to objective monitoring (72.6% vs 51.3%, p<0.001).
Why the study?
Data diverge on whether physical activity levels differ between patients with CHD and controls, and it is unknown whether physical activity levels can be reliably assessed in patients with CHD using self-reported instruments.
Does self-reported physical activity using IPAQ accurately reflect objective physical activity levels in adults with congenital heart disease compared to controls?
Cross-Sectional (n=117)
Does self-reported physical activity using IPAQ accurately reflect objective physical activity levels in adults with congenital heart disease compared to controls?
Absolute Event Rate: 72.6% vs 51.3%
p-value: p=<0.001
Adults with congenital heart disease overestimate their physical activity levels on self-reported questionnaires compared to objective monitoring, though questionnaires may still be useful for identifying those with insufficient activity.
Caution needed interpreting IPAQ in congenital heart disease; leaves open optimal activity assessment methods for validation.
Physical activity reduces the risk of acquired cardiovascular disease, which is of great importance in patients with congenital heart disease (CHD). There are diverging data whether physical activity level (PAL) differs between patients with CHD and controls. Furthermore, it is unknown if PAL can be reliably assessed in patients with CHD using self-reported instruments. Seventy-five patients with CHD (mean age 37.5 ± 15.5 years, women n = 29 [38.7%]) and 42 age and sex matched controls completed the International Physical Activity Questionnaire (IPAQ) and carried the activity monitor Actiheart over 4 days. Time spent at ≥3 METS ≥21.4 min/day, i.e. reaching the WHO recommendation for PAL to promote health, was used as the outcome measure. Data on PAL obtained from IPAQ were compared with Actiheart. The proportion of individuals reaching target PAL according to IPAQ was similar in patients with CHD and controls (70.7%vs.76.2%, p = 0.52) as well as between patients with simple and complex lesions. There was an overall difference between IPAQ and Actiheart in detecting recommended PAL (72.6%vs.51.3%, p < 0.001). In a subgroup analysis, this difference was also detected in patients but was borderline for controls. The negative predictive value for IPAQ in detecting insufficient PAL was higher in patients than in controls (73%vs.40%). The proportion of persons reaching sufficient PAL to promote health was similar in patients and controls. The self-reported instrument overestimated PAL in relation to objective measurements. However, with a high negative predictive value, IPAQ is a potentially useful tool for detecting patients with insufficient PAL.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Larsson et al. (2018) conducted a cross-sectional in Congenital heart disease (n=117). Self-reported physical activity assessment (IPAQ) vs. Objective activity monitor (Actiheart) was evaluated on Detection of recommended physical activity level (≥3 METS ≥21.4 min/day) (p=<0.001). Self-reported physical activity using IPAQ significantly overestimated the proportion of participants achieving recommended activity levels compared to objective monitoring (72.6% vs 51.3%, p<0.001).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: