4.5 Article

Validating MOSPA questionnaire for measuring physical activity in Pakistani women

期刊

NUTRITION JOURNAL
卷 5, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

BMC
DOI: 10.1186/1475-2891-5-18

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Precise measurements of activity at a population level are important for monitoring trends and evaluating health promotion strategies. Few studies have assessed the measurement of physical activity in developing countries. The aim of this study was to validate the MOSPA (Monica Optional Study of Physical Activity) questionnaire which was developed for the WHO-Monitoring trends and determinants of cardiovasculr disease (MONICA) study sites. Methods: The MOSPA questionnaire assesses energy expendtiture (EE) related to physical activity (employment, household work, transportation, and leisure time) over a one year period. This questionnaire has been described in the manuscript as the long term (LT) questionnaire. An adapted short term (ST) 5 day questionnaire was developed to assess convergent validity. Questionnaire data were compared with physical activity EE estimates from a Caltrac accelerometer and with body composition measures (height, weight and bioelectrical impedance) in 50 women from the Aga Khan University (AKU) hospital antenatal clinics, Pakistan. Other forms of EE i.e. resting EE and thermic effect of food were not assessd in this study. Results: Subjects were aged 26 +/- 3.8 years and were 16.1 +/- 6.7 weeks pregnant. Their average weight was 58.8 +/- 10.7 Kg. The average EE/day assessed by the Caltrac accelerometer, was 224 kcal and by MOSPA LT questionnaire it was 404 kcal. The questionnaires and Caltrac data were reasonably well correlated: r = 0.51 and r = 0.60 (P < 0.01) for LT and ST questionnaires respectively. Energy expenditure from questionnaire data was not correlated with body composition measures. Conclusion: The MOSPA questionnaire is useful in assessing physical activity levels in a sedentary population over a one year period.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据