4.3 Article

Does the relationship between physical activity and quality of life differ based on generic versus disease-targeted instruments?

Journal

ANNALS OF BEHAVIORAL MEDICINE
Volume 36, Issue 1, Pages 93-99

Publisher

OXFORD UNIV PRESS INC
DOI: 10.1007/s12160-008-9049-4

Keywords

quality of life; health-related quality of life; physical activity

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background There has been an increased interest in the study of physical activity and its relationship with quality of life (QOL) and health-related quality of life (HRQL) in chronic disease conditions. The investigations have used either generic or disease-targeted instruments for measuring QOL and HRQL, but have not examined differences in the associations as a function of the types of instruments. Purpose The present study examined the associations among physical activity, QOL, and HRQL using generic and disease-targeted instruments in persons with multiple sclerosis (MS). Methods Participants were 292 individuals with MS who wore an accelerometer for 7 days and then completed the Godin Leisure-Time Exercise Questionnaire (GLTEQ), Multiple Sclerosis Impact Scale-29 (MSIS-29), Leeds Multiple Sclerosis Quality of Life Scale (LMSQOL), Short Form-12 Health Survey (SF-12), and Satisfaction With Life Scale (SWLS). Results Accelerometer counts and GLTEQ scores had similarly sized correlations with scores from generic (SF-12) and the disease-specific (MSIS-29) measures of HRQL and generic (SWLS) and the disease-specific (LMSQOL) measures of QOL. Path analysis indicated a similar pattern of directional relationships between accelerometer counts and GLTEQ scores with physical and mental HRQL and, in turn, physical and mental HRQL with QOL using generic and disease-targeted instruments. Conclusions Our results suggest that in cross-sectional analysis, physical activity is similarly related with QOL and HRQL using generic and disease-targeted instruments in persons with MS.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.3
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available