Concurrent and predictive validity of physical activity measurement items commonly used in clinical settings- data from SCAPIS pilot study.

BACKGROUND: As the understanding of how different aspects of the physical activity (PA) pattern relate to health and disease, proper assessment is increasingly important. In clinical care, self-reports are the most commonly used assessment technique. However, systematic comparisons between questions regarding concurrent or criterion validity are rare, as are measures of predictive validity. The aim of the study was to examine the concurrent (using accelerometry as reference) and predictive validity (for metabolic syndrome) of five PA questions. METHODS: A sample of 948 middle-aged Swedish men and women reported their PA patterns via five different questions and wore an accelerometer (Actigraph GT3X) for a minimum of 4 days. Concurrent validity was assessed as correlations and ROC-analyses. Predictive validity was assessed using logistic regression, controlling for potential confounders. RESULTS: Concurrent validity was low-to-moderate (r <0.35 and ROC AUC <0.7) with large misclassifications regarding time spent sitting/sedentary and in moderate-to vigorous PA. The predictive validity of the questions was good, and one question (PHAS) showed an 80 % decreased odds-ratio of having metabolic syndrome, after taking potential confounders into consideration. DISCUSSION: In this mixed sample of adults, both concurrent and predictive validity vaired between items and between measures of the physical activity pattern. The PHAS and WALK items are proposed for assessment of adherence to PA recommendations. CONCLUSION: Assessing PA patterns using self-report measures results in methodological problems when trying to predict individual risk for the metabolic syndrome, as the concurrent validity generally was low. However, several of the investigated questions may be useful for assessing risk at a group level, showing better predictive validity.SCAPI

What is required to facilitate implementation of Swedish physical activity on prescription? - interview study with primary healthcare staff and management.

BACKGROUND: The method, Swedish Physical Activity on Prescription (SPAP), has been launched in Swedish healthcare to promote physical activity for prevention and treatment of lifestyle related health disorders. Despite scientific support for the method, and education campaigns, it is used to a limited extent by health professionals. The aim of the study was to describe the views of health professionals on perceived facilitators, barriers and requirements for successful implementation of SPAP in primary healthcare. METHODS: Eighteen semi-structured interviews with stakeholders in SPAP, i.e. ten people working in local or central management and eight primary healthcare professionals in two regional healthcare organisations, were analysed using qualitative content analysis. RESULTS: We identified an overarching theme regarding requirements for successful implementation of SPAP: Need for knowledge and organisational support, comprising four main categories: Need for increased knowledge and affirmative attitude among health professionals; Need for clear and supportive management; Need for central supporting structures; Need for local supporting structures. Knowledge of the SPAP method content and core components was limited. Confidence in the method varied among health professionals. There was a discrepancy between the central organisation policy documents declaring that disease preventive methods were prioritised and a mandatory assignment, while the health professionals asked for increased interest, support and resources from management, primarily time and supporting structures. There were somewhat conflicting views between primary healthcare professionals and managers concerning perceived barriers and requirements. In contrast to some of the management's beliefs, all primary healthcare professionals undisputedly acknowledged the importance of promoting physical activity, but they lacked time, written routines and in some cases competence for SPAP counselling. CONCLUSION: The study provides knowledge regarding requirements to facilitate the implementation of SPAP in healthcare. There was limited knowledge among health professionals regarding core components of SPAP and how to practise the method, which speaks for in-depth training in the SPAP method. The findings highlight the importance of forming policies and guidelines and establishing organisational supporting structures, and ensuring that these are well known and approved in all parts of the healthcare organisation

Combination chemotherapy versus melphalan plus prednisone as treatment for multiple myeloma: an overview of 6,633 patients from 27 randomized trials.

PURPOSE: To compare combination chemotherapy (CCT) versus melphalan plus prednisone (MP) as treatment for multiple myeloma. PATIENTS AND METHODS: In a collaborative worldwide overview of randomized trials of CCT versus MP, individual patient data on 4,930 patients from 20 trials were analyzed, with the addition of published data on a further 1,703 patients from seven trials. The main outcome measure was mortality, with response and recurrence rates being subsidiary end points. RESULTS: Taking all of the trials together, response rates were significantly higher with CCT than with MP (60.0% v 53.2%; P < .00001, two-tailed). There was no evidence of any difference in mortality between CCT and MP, with a nonsignificant 1.5% reduction in death rate in favor of CCT (P = .6, two-tailed). There is heterogeneity of design between the trials, but subgroup analyses by type of CCT or by dose-intensities of CCT, of melphalan, or of prednisone did not identify any particular forms of therapy that were either clearly beneficial or clearly adverse. Similarly, analysis of the presentation features of the patients did not find any categories in which CCT differed significantly from MP in its effects on mortality; in particular, there was no evidence that poor-risk patients benefited more from CCT. CONCLUSION: This overview found no difference, either overall or within any subgroup, in mortality between CCT and MP. In terms of survival, these therapeutic options, as tested in the trials considered, are approximately equivalent