4.5 Article

The BPAQ: a bone-specific physical activity assessment instrument

Journal

OSTEOPOROSIS INTERNATIONAL
Volume 19, Issue 11, Pages 1567-1577

Publisher

SPRINGER LONDON LTD
DOI: 10.1007/s00198-008-0606-2

Keywords

bone mass; exercise; ground reaction force; pedometer

Ask authors/readers for more resources

A newly developed bone-specific physical activity questionnaire (BPAQ) was compared with other common measures of physical activity for its ability to predict parameters of bone strength in healthy, young adults. The BPAQ predicted indices of bone strength at clinically relevant sites in both men and women, while other measures did not. Introduction Only certain types of physical activity (PA) are notably osteogenic. Most methods to quantify levels of PA fail to account for bone relevant loading. Our aim was to examine the ability of several methods of PA assessment and a new bone-specific measure to predict parameters of bone strength in healthy adults. Methods We recruited 40 men and women (mean age 24.5). Subjects completed the modifiable activity questionnaire, Bouchard 3-day activity record, a recently published bone loading history questionnaire (BLHQ), and wore a pedometer for 14 days. We also administered our bone-specific physical activity questionnaire (BPAQ). Calcaneal broadband ultrasound attenuation (BUA) (QUS-2, Quidel) and densitometric measures (XR-36, Norland) were examined. Multiple regression and correlation analyses were performed on the data. Results The current activity component of BPAQ was a significant predictor of variance in femoral neck bone mineral density (BMD), lumbar spine BMD, and whole body BMD (R-2=0.36-0.68, p < 0.01) for men, while the past activity component of BPAQ predicted calcaneal BUA (R-2=0.48, p=0.001) for women. Conclusions The BPAQ predicted indices of bone strength at skeletal sites at risk of osteoporotic fracture while other PA measurement tools did not.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available