Conference Agenda
Overview and details of the sessions of this conference. Please select a date or location to show only sessions at that day or location. Please select a single session for detailed view (with abstracts and downloads if available).
|
Daily Overview |
| Session | |
|
GR1_2_1: Abstract presentations: Systems, Policy and Equity in Physical Activity Promotion Location: Glass room 1 Session Chair: Anja Frei | |
    | |
9:55am - 10:05am
The single-item physical activity (SIPA) measure – usefulness for population surveillance and community-wide program evaluation University of Sydney, Australia Purpose: To explore the single-item physical activity (SIPA) question for adults in national population surveillance and in community-wide physical activity (PA) program evaluation. Given diverse changes to self-report measures, and increased pressure for device-based surveillance, the SIPA is explored for adoption in European PA surveillance systems. Previous research has shown the SIPA measure (days/week of 30mins MVPA) has similar reliability (0.6-0.8) and validity (0.3-0.5), similar to established self-report PA measures. Methods: Analysis of the SIPA in three population-wide surveillance systems (Ireland, New Zealand, Australia), and in the evaluation of four large community-wide PA programs. The research questions were [i] whether the SIPA could correctly classify populations meeting PA guidelines established through existing self-report survey measures [using epidemiological methods - ROC curve analyses], and [ii] demonstrate the impact of community PA/sport programs. Results: The SIPA can correctly classify populations as meeting physical activity guidelines (AUC values: New Zealand 0.81, Ireland 0.84, Australia 0.93, with Youden’s index 0.54-0.71). In the four large community programs, change in physical activity of between 0.2 days and 1.2 days was observed, indicating measurement responsiveness. Conclusions/policy relevance: The single-item PA question is affordable, low respondent burden, has acceptable measurement properties for long-term adoption by national and regional PA surveillance surveys. In addition it is an inexpensive option for use in non-health data collections, and for standardised, comparable assessment of the impact across community-wide PA programs. Acknowledge 14 co-contributors providing country/project data for this analysis: K.Owen/ S.Messing/ B.Cullen/H.Macdonald/ L.Nettlefold/ J.Richards/ C.Vandelanotte/ J.Van Buskirk/A.van Itallie/P.O’Halloran/ M.Nicholson/ E.Staley/ E.Randle/H.McKay | |
