Top

Published in:

Open Access 01-10-2018 | Systematic Review

Physical Activity Questionnaires for Pregnancy: A Systematic Review of Measurement Properties

Authors: Matteo C. Sattler, Johannes Jaunig, Estelle D. Watson, Mireille N. M. van Poppel, Lidwine B. Mokkink, Caroline B. Terwee, Pavel Dietz

Published in: Sports Medicine | Issue 10/2018

Abstract

Background

In order to assess physical activity (PA) during pregnancy, it is important to choose the instrument with the best measurement properties.

Objectives

To systematically summarize, appraise, and compare the measurement properties of all self-administered questionnaires assessing PA in pregnancy.

Methods

We searched PubMed, Embase, and SPORTDiscus with the following inclusion criteria: (i) the study reported at least one measurement property (reliability, criterion validity, construct validity, responsiveness) of a self-administered questionnaire; (ii) the questionnaire intended to measure PA; (iii) the questionnaire was evaluated in healthy pregnant women; and (iv) the study was published in English. We evaluated results, quality of individual studies, and quality of evidence using a standardized checklist (Quality Assessment of Physical Activity Questionnaires [QAPAQ]) and the GRADE (Grading of Recommendation, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation) approach.

Results

Seventeen articles, reporting 18 studies of 11 different PA questionnaires (17 versions), were included. Most questionnaire versions showed insufficient measurement properties. Only the French and Turkish versions of the Pregnancy Physical Activity Questionnaire (PPAQ) showed both sufficient reliability and construct validity. However, all versions of the PPAQ pooled together showed insufficient construct validity. The quality of individual studies was usually high for reliability but varied considerably for construct validity. Overall, the quality of evidence was very low to moderate.

Conclusions

We recommend the PPAQ to assess PA in pregnancy, although the pooled results revealed insufficient construct validity. The lack of appropriate standards in data collection and processing criteria for objective devices in measuring PA during pregnancy attenuates the quality of evidence. Therefore, research on the validity of comparison instruments in pregnancy followed by consensus on validation reference criteria and standards of PA measurement is needed.

Available only for authorised users

Lee I-M, Shiroma EJ, Lobelo F, Puska P, Blair SN, Katzmarzyk PT. Effect of physical inactivity on major non-communicable diseases worldwide: an analysis of burden of disease and life expectancy. Lancet. 2012;380:219–29. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(12)61031-9.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Poudevigne MS, O’Connor PJ. A review of physical activity patterns in pregnant women and their relationship to psychological health. Sports Med. 2006;36:19–38.CrossRefPubMed

da Silva SG, Ricardo LI, Evenson KR, Hallal PC. Leisure-time physical activity in pregnancy and maternal-child health: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials and cohort studies. Sports Med. 2017;47:295–317. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40279-016-0565-2.CrossRefPubMed

Tobias DK, Zhang C, van Dam RM, Bowers K, Hu FB. Physical activity before and during pregnancy and risk of gestational diabetes mellitus: a meta-analysis. Diabetes Care. 2011;34:223–9. https://doi.org/10.2337/dc10-1368.CrossRefPubMed

Melzer K, Schutz Y, Boulvain M, Kayser B. Physical activity and pregnancy: cardiovascular adaptations, recommendations and pregnancy outcomes. Sports Med. 2010;40:493–507. https://doi.org/10.2165/11532290-000000000-00000.CrossRefPubMed

Aune D, Saugstad OD, Henriksen T, Tonstad S. Physical activity and the risk of preeclampsia: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Epidemiology. 2014;25:331–43. https://doi.org/10.1097/EDE.0000000000000036.CrossRefPubMed

Moyer C, Reoyo OR, May L. The influence of prenatal exercise on offspring health: a review. Clin Med Insights Womens Health. 2016;9:37–42. https://doi.org/10.4137/CMWH.S34670.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef

Barker DJP. The origins of the developmental origins theory. J Intern Med. 2007;261:412–7. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2796.2007.01809.x.CrossRefPubMed

American College of Obstetrics and Gynecology. Committee opinion no. 650: physical activity and exercise during pregnancy and the postpartum period. Obstet Gynecol. 2015;126:e135–42. https://doi.org/10.1097/AOG.0000000000001214.CrossRef

10.

Chinapaw MJM, Mokkink LB, van Poppel MNM, van Mechelen W, Terwee CB. Physical activity questionnaires for youth: a systematic review of measurement properties. Sports Med. 2010;40:539–63. https://doi.org/10.2165/11530770-000000000-00000.CrossRefPubMed

11.

van Poppel MNM, Chinapaw MJM, Mokkink LB, van Mechelen W, Terwee CB. Physical activity questionnaires for adults: a systematic review of measurement properties. Sports Med. 2010;40:565–600. https://doi.org/10.2165/11531930-000000000-00000.CrossRefPubMed

12.

Forsen L, Loland NW, Vuillemin A, Chinapaw MJM, van Poppel MNM, Mokkink LB, et al. Self-administered physical activity questionnaires for the elderly: a systematic review of measurement properties. Sports Med. 2010;40:601–23. https://doi.org/10.2165/11531350-000000000-00000.CrossRefPubMed

13.

Terwee CB, Jansma EP, Riphagen II, de Vet HCW. Development of a methodological PubMed search filter for finding studies on measurement properties of measurement instruments. Qual Life Res. 2009;18:1115–23. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-009-9528-5.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

14.

Caspersen CJ, Powell KE, Christenson GM. Physical activity, exercise, and physical fitness: definitions and distinctions for health-related research. Public Health Rep. 1985;100:126–31.PubMedPubMedCentral

15.

Bowling A. Mode of questionnaire administration can have serious effects on data quality. J Public Health. 2005;27:281–91. https://doi.org/10.1093/pubmed/fdi031.CrossRef

16.

Costa DSJ. Reflective, causal, and composite indicators of quality of life: a conceptual or an empirical distinction? Qual Life Res. 2015;24:2057–65. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-015-0954-2.CrossRefPubMed

17.

Terwee CB, Mokkink LB, van Poppel MNM, Chinapaw MJM, van Mechelen W, de Vet HCW. Qualitative attributes and measurement properties of physical activity questionnaires: a checklist. Sports Med. 2010;40:525–37. https://doi.org/10.2165/11531370-000000000-00000.CrossRefPubMed

18.

Mokkink LB, Terwee CB, Knol DL, Stratford PW, Alonso J, Patrick DL, et al. Protocol of the COSMIN study: COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2006;6:2. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2288-6-2.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

19.

Terwee CB, Bot SDM, de Boer MR, van der Windt DAWM, Knol DL, Dekker J, et al. Quality criteria were proposed for measurement properties of health status questionnaires. J Clin Epidemiol. 2007;60:34–42. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2006.03.012.CrossRefPubMed

20.

Mokkink LB, Terwee CB, Patrick DL, Alonso J, Stratford PW, Knol DL, et al. The COSMIN study reached international consensus on taxonomy, terminology, and definitions of measurement properties for health-related patient-reported outcomes. J Clin Epidemiol. 2010;63:737–45. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2010.02.006.CrossRefPubMed

21.

Deyo RA, Centor RM. Assessing the responsiveness of functional scales to clinical change: an analogy to diagnostic test performance. J Chronic Dis. 1986;39:897–906. https://doi.org/10.1016/0021-9681(86)90038-X.CrossRefPubMed

22.

Terwee CB, Dekker FW, Wiersinga WM, Prummel MF, Bossuyt PMM. On assessing responsiveness of health-related quality of life instruments: guidelines for instrument evaluation. Qual Life Res. 2003;12:349–62.CrossRefPubMed

23.

Mokkink LB, de Vet HCW, Prinsen CAC, Patrick DL, Alonso J, Bouter LM, Terwee CB. COSMIN risk of bias checklist for systematic reviews of patient-reported outcome measures. Qual Life Res. 2018;27:1171–9. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-017-1765-4.CrossRefPubMed

24.

Weir JP. Quantifying test-retest reliability using the intraclass correlation coefficient and the SEM. J Strength Cond Res. 2005;19:231–40. https://doi.org/10.1519/15184.1.PubMedCrossRef

25.

Guyatt GH, Oxman AD, Schünemann HJ, Tugwell P, Knottnerus A. GRADE guidelines: a new series of articles in the Journal of Clinical Epidemiology. J Clin Epidemiol. 2011;64:380–2. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2010.09.011.CrossRefPubMed

26.

Prinsen CAC, Mokkink LB, Bouter LM, Alonso J, Patrick DL, de Vet HCW, Terwee CB. COSMIN guideline for systematic reviews of patient-reported outcome measures. Qual Life Res. 2018;27:1147–57. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-018-1798-3.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

27.

de Vet Henrica CW, Terwee CB, Mokkink LB, Knol DL. Measurement in medicine: a practical guide. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2011.

28.

Moinester M, Gottfried R. Sample size estimation for correlations with pre-specified confidence interval. TQMP. 2014;10:124–30. https://doi.org/10.20982/tqmp.10.2.p0124.CrossRef

29.

Wildschut HI, Harker LM, Riddoch CJ. The potential value of a short self-completion questionnaire for the assessment of habitual physical activity in pregnancy. J Psychosom Obstet Gynaecol. 1993;14:17–29.CrossRefPubMed

30.

McParlin C, Robson SC, Tennant PWG, Besson H, Rankin J, Adamson AJ, et al. Objectively measured physical activity during pregnancy: a study in obese and overweight women. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2010;10:76. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2393-10-76.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

31.

Liu J, Blair SN, Teng Y, Ness AR, Lawlor DA, Riddoch C. Physical activity during pregnancy in a prospective cohort of British women: results from the Avon longitudinal study of parents and children. Eur J Epidemiol. 2011;26:237–47. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10654-010-9538-1.CrossRefPubMed

32.

Ko Y-L, Chen C-P, Lin P-C. Physical activities during pregnancy and type of delivery in nulliparae. Eur J Sport Sci. 2016;16:374–80. https://doi.org/10.1080/17461391.2015.1028468.CrossRefPubMed

33.

Santos PC, Abreu S, Moreira C, Santos R, Ferreira M, Alves O, et al. Physical activity patterns during pregnancy in a sample of Portuguese women: a longitudinal prospective study. Iran Red Crescent Med J. 2016;18:e22455. https://doi.org/10.5812/ircmj.22455.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

34.

Lindseth G, Vari P. Measuring physical activity during pregnancy. West J Nurs Res. 2005;27:722–34. https://doi.org/10.1177/0193945905276523.CrossRefPubMed

35.

Smith KM, Foster RC, Campbell CG. Accuracy of physical activity assessment during pregnancy: an observational study. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2011;11:86. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2393-11-86.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

36.

Stein AD, Rivera JM, Pivarnik JM. Measuring energy expenditure in habitually active and sedentary pregnant women. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2003;35:1441–6. https://doi.org/10.1249/01.MSS.0000079107.04349.9A.CrossRefPubMed

37.

Rousham EK, Clarke PE, Gross H. Significant changes in physical activity among pregnant women in the UK as assessed by accelerometry and self-reported activity. Eur J Clin Nutr. 2006;60:393–400. https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.ejcn.1602329.CrossRefPubMed

38.

Schmidt MD, Freedson PS, Pekow P, Roberts D, Sternfeld B, Chasan-Taber L. Validation of the Kaiser Physical Activity Survey in pregnant women. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2006;38:42–50.CrossRefPubMed

39.

Aittasalo M, Pasanen M, Fogelholm M, Ojala K. Validity and repeatability of a short pregnancy leisure time physical activity questionnaire. J Phys Act Health. 2010;7:109–18.CrossRefPubMed

40.

Bell R, Tennant PWG, McParlin C, Pearce MS, Adamson AJ, Rankin J, Robson SC. Measuring physical activity in pregnancy: a comparison of accelerometry and self-completion questionnaires in overweight and obese women. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2013;170:90–5. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejogrb.2013.05.018.CrossRefPubMed

41.

Brantsaeter AL, Owe KM, Haugen M, Alexander J, Meltzer HM, Longnecker MP. Validation of self-reported recreational exercise in pregnant women in the Norwegian Mother and Child Cohort Study. Scand J Med Sci Sports. 2010;20:e48–55. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0838.2009.00896.x.CrossRefPubMed

42.

Brett KE, Wilson S, Ferraro ZM, Adamo KB. Self-report Pregnancy Physical Activity Questionnaire overestimates physical activity. Can J Public Health. 2015;106:e297–302. https://doi.org/10.17269/cjph.106.4938.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

43.

Chandonnet N, Saey D, Almeras N, Marc I. French Pregnancy Physical Activity Questionnaire compared with an accelerometer cut point to classify physical activity among pregnant obese women. PLoS One. 2012;7:e38818. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0038818.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

44.

Chasan-Taber L, Schmidt MD, Roberts DE, Hosmer D, Markenson G, Freedson PS. Development and validation of a Pregnancy Physical Activity Questionnaire. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2004;36:1750–60.CrossRefPubMed

45.

Cirak Y, Yilmaz GD, Demir YP, Dalkilinc M, Yaman S. Pregnancy physical activity questionnaire (PPAQ): reliability and validity of Turkish version. J Phys Ther Sci. 2015;27:3703–9. https://doi.org/10.1589/jpts.27.3703.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

46.

Cohen TR, Plourde H, Koski KG. Use of the Pregnancy Physical Activity Questionnaire (PPAQ) to identify behaviours associated with appropriate gestational weight gain during pregnancy. J Phys Act Health. 2013;10:1000–7.CrossRefPubMed

47.

Haakstad LAH, Gundersen I, Bo K. Self-reporting compared to motion monitor in the measurement of physical activity during pregnancy. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2010;89:749–56. https://doi.org/10.3109/00016349.2010.484482.CrossRefPubMed

48.

Harrison CL, Thompson RG, Teede HJ, Lombard CB. Measuring physical activity during pregnancy. Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act. 2011;8:19. https://doi.org/10.1186/1479-5868-8-19.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

49.

Matsuzaki M, Haruna M, Nakayama K, Shiraishi M, Ota E, Murayama R, et al. Adapting the Pregnancy Physical Activity Questionnaire for Japanese pregnant women. J Obstet Gynecol Neonatal Nurs. 2014;43:107–16. https://doi.org/10.1111/1552-6909.12267.CrossRefPubMed

50.

Oostdam N, van Mechelen W, van Poppel M. Validation and responsiveness of the AQuAA for measuring physical activity in overweight and obese pregnant women. J Sci Med Sport. 2013;16:412–6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsams.2012.09.001.CrossRefPubMed

51.

Ota E, Haruna M, Yanai H, Suzuki M, Anh DD, Matsuzaki M, et al. Reliability and validity of the Vietnamese version of the Pregnancy Physical Activity Questionnaire (PPAQ). Southeast Asian J Trop Med Public Health. 2008;39:562–70.PubMed

52.

Sanda B, Vistad I, Haakstad LAH, Berntsen S, Sagedal LR, Lohne-Seiler H, Torstveit MK. Reliability and concurrent validity of the International Physical Activity Questionnaire short form among pregnant women. BMC Sports Sci Med Rehabil. 2017;9:7. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13102-017-0070-4.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

53.

Symons Downs D, LeMasurier GC, DiNallo JM. Baby steps: pedometer-determined and self-reported leisure-time exercise behaviors of pregnant women. J Phys Act Health. 2009;6:63–72.CrossRef

54.

Watson ED, Micklesfield LK, van Poppel MNM, Norris SA, Sattler MC, Dietz P. Validity and responsiveness of the Global Physical Activity Questionnaire (GPAQ) in assessing physical activity during pregnancy. PLoS One. 2017;12:e0177996. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0177996.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

55.

Xiang M, Konishi M, Hu H, Takahashi M, Fan W, Nishimaki M, et al. Reliability and validity of a Chinese-translated version of a Pregnancy Physical Activity Questionnaire. Matern Child Health J. 2016;20:1940–7. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10995-016-2008-y.CrossRefPubMed

56.

Armstrong T, Bull F. Development of the World Health Organization Global Physical Activity Questionnaire (GPAQ). J Public Health. 2006;14:66–70. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10389-006-0024-x.CrossRef

57.

Besson H, Brage S, Jakes RW, Ekelund U, Wareham NJ. Estimating physical activity energy expenditure, sedentary time, and physical activity intensity by self-report in adults. Am J Clin Nutr. 2010;91:106–14. https://doi.org/10.3945/ajcn.2009.28432.CrossRefPubMed

58.

Chinapaw MJM, Slootmaker SM, Schuit AJ, van Zuidam M, van Mechelen W. Reliability and validity of the Activity Questionnaire for Adults and Adolescents (AQuAA). BMC Med Res Methodol. 2009;9:58. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2288-9-58.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

59.

Craig CL, Marshall AL, Sjostrom M, Bauman AE, Booth ML, Ainsworth BE, et al. International physical activity questionnaire: 12-country reliability and validity. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2003;35:1381–95. https://doi.org/10.1249/01.MSS.0000078924.61453.FB.CrossRefPubMed

60.

Fjeldsoe BS, Marshall AL, Miller YD. Measurement properties of the Australian Women’s Activity Survey. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2009;41:1020–33. https://doi.org/10.1249/MSS.0b013e31819461c2.CrossRefPubMed

61.

Godin G, Shephard RJ. A simple method to assess exercise behavior in the community. Can J Appl Sport Sci. 1985;10:141–6.PubMed

62.

Haakstad LAH, Voldner N, Henriksen T, Bo K. Physical activity level and weight gain in a cohort of pregnant Norwegian women. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2007;86:559–64. https://doi.org/10.1080/00016340601185301.CrossRefPubMed

63.

Magnus P, Trogstad L, Owe KM, Olsen SF, Nystad W. Recreational physical activity and the risk of preeclampsia: a prospective cohort of Norwegian women. Am J Epidemiol. 2008;168:952–7. https://doi.org/10.1093/aje/kwn189.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

64.

Ainsworth BE, Haskell WL, Whitt MC, Irwin ML, Swartz AM, Strath SJ, et al. Compendium of physical activities: an update of activity codes and MET intensities. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2000;32:S498–504.CrossRefPubMed

65.

Wareham NJ, Jakes RW, Rennie KL, Mitchell J, Hennings S, Day NE. Validity and repeatability of the EPIC-Norfolk Physical Activity Questionnaire. Int J Epidemiol. 2002;31:168–74. https://doi.org/10.1093/ije/31.1.168.CrossRefPubMed

66.

Evenson KR, Chasan-Taber L, Symons Downs D, Pearce EE. Review of self-reported physical activity assessments for pregnancy: summary of the evidence for validity and reliability. Paediatr Perinat Epidemiol. 2012;26:479–94. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-3016.2012.01311.x.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

67.

Goldberg GR, Prentice AM, Coward WA, Davies HL, Murgatroyd PR, Wensing C, et al. Longitudinal assessment of energy expenditure in pregnancy by the doubly labeled water method. Am J Clin Nutr. 1993;57:494–505.CrossRefPubMed

68.

Corder K, Brage S, Ekelund U. Accelerometers and pedometers: methodology and clinical application. Curr Opin Clin Nutr Metab Care. 2007;10:597–603. https://doi.org/10.1097/MCO.0b013e328285d883.CrossRefPubMed

69.

Butte NF, Wong WW, Treuth MS, Ellis KJ, O’Brian Smith E. Energy requirements during pregnancy based on total energy expenditure and energy deposition. Am J Clin Nutr. 2004;79:1078–87.CrossRefPubMed

70.

Lof M, Forsum E. Activity pattern and energy expenditure due to physical activity before and during pregnancy in healthy Swedish women. Br J Nutr. 2006;95:296–302.CrossRefPubMed

71.

Symons Downs D, Chasan-Taber L, Evenson KR, Leiferman J, Yeo S. Physical activity and pregnancy: past and present evidence and future recommendations. Res Q Exerc Sport. 2012;83:485–502. https://doi.org/10.1080/02701367.2012.10599138.CrossRef

72.

Roberts DE, Fragala MS, Pober D, Chasan-Taber L, Freedson PS. Energy cost of physical activities during pregnancy. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2002;34:S124.CrossRef

73.

Plasqui G, Westerterp KR. Physical activity assessment with accelerometers: an evaluation against doubly labeled water. Obesity (Silver Spring). 2007;15:2371–9. https://doi.org/10.1038/oby.2007.281.CrossRef

74.

Matthews CE, Hagströmer M, Pober DM, Bowles HR. Best practices for using physical activity monitors in population-based research. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2012;44:S68–76. https://doi.org/10.1249/MSS.0b013e3182399e5b.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

75.

Rosenberger ME, Haskell WL, Albinali F, Mota S, Nawyn J, Intille S. Estimating activity and sedentary behavior from an accelerometer on the hip or wrist. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2013;45:964–75. https://doi.org/10.1249/MSS.0b013e31827f0d9c.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

76.

Mâsse LC, Fuemmeler BF, Anderson CB, Matthews CE, Trost SG, Catellier DJ, Treuth M. Accelerometer data reduction: a comparison of four reduction algorithms on select outcome variables. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2005;37:S544–54.CrossRefPubMed

77.

Swartz AM, Strath SJ, Bassett DR, O’Brien WL, King GA, Ainsworth BE. Estimation of energy expenditure using CSA accelerometers at hip and wrist sites. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2000;32:S450–6.CrossRefPubMed

78.

Freedson PS, Melanson E, Sirard J. Calibration of the computer science and applications, Inc. accelerometer. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 1998;30:777–81.CrossRefPubMed

79.

Hendelman D, Miller K, Baggett C, Debold E, Freedson P. Validity of accelerometry for the assessment of moderate intensity physical activity in the field. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2000;32:S442–9.CrossRefPubMed

80.

Matthews CE. Calibration of accelerometer output for adults. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2005;37:S512–22.CrossRef

81.

Colley RC, Tremblay MS. Moderate and vigorous physical activity intensity cut-points for the Actical accelerometer. J Sports Sci. 2011;29:783–9. https://doi.org/10.1080/02640414.2011.557744.CrossRefPubMed

82.

Watson KB, Carlson SA, Carroll DD, Fulton JE. Comparison of accelerometer cut points to estimate physical activity in US adults. J Sports Sci. 2014;32:660–9. https://doi.org/10.1080/02640414.2013.847278.CrossRefPubMed

83.

Connolly CP, Coe DP, Kendrick JM, Bassett DR, Thompson DL. Accuracy of physical activity monitors in pregnant women. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2011;43:1100–5. https://doi.org/10.1249/MSS.0b013e3182058883.CrossRefPubMed

84.

DiNallo JM, Downs DS, Le Masurier G. Objectively assessing treadmill walking during the second and third pregnancy trimesters. J Phys Act Health. 2012;9:21–8.CrossRefPubMed

85.

Pedišić Ž, Bauman A. Accelerometer-based measures in physical activity surveillance: current practices and issues. Br J Sports Med. 2015;49:219–23. https://doi.org/10.1136/bjsports-2013-093407.CrossRefPubMed

86.

Migueles JH, Cadenas-Sanchez C, Ekelund U, Delisle Nyström C, Mora-Gonzalez J, Löf M, et al. Accelerometer data collection and processing criteria to assess physical activity and other outcomes: a systematic review and practical considerations. Sports Med. 2017;47:1821–45. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40279-017-0716-0.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

87.

The IPAQ Group. International Physical Activity Questionnaires (IPAQ). 2002. http://www.ipaq.ki.se. Accessed 10 Aug 2017.

88.

Hopkins WG. Measures of reliability in sports medicine and science. Sports Med. 2000;30:1–15.CrossRefPubMed

89.

Passing H, Bablok W. A new biometrical procedure for testing the equality of measurements from two different analytical methods. Application of linear regression procedures for method comparison studies in clinical chemistry, Part I. J Clin Chem Clin Biochem. 1983;21:709–20.PubMed

90.

Hustvedt B-E, Christophersen A, Johnsen LR, Tomten H, McNeill G, Haggarty P, Løvø A. Description and validation of the ActiReg: a novel instrument to measure physical activity and energy expenditure. Br J Nutr. 2004;92:1001–8.CrossRefPubMed

91.

Kumahara H, Schutz Y, Ayabe M, Yoshioka M, Yoshitake Y, Shindo M, et al. The use of uniaxial accelerometry for the assessment of physical-activity-related energy expenditure: a validation study against whole-body indirect calorimetry. Br J Nutr. 2004;91:235–43. https://doi.org/10.1079/BJN20031033.CrossRefPubMed

Title: Physical Activity Questionnaires for Pregnancy: A Systematic Review of Measurement Properties
Authors: Matteo C. Sattler
Johannes Jaunig
Estelle D. Watson
Mireille N. M. van Poppel
Lidwine B. Mokkink
Caroline B. Terwee
Pavel Dietz
Publication date: 01-10-2018
Publisher: Springer International Publishing
Published in: Sports Medicine / Issue 10/2018
Print ISSN: 0112-1642
Electronic ISSN: 1179-2035
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40279-018-0961-x

At a glance: The STEP trials

Springer Medicine

Physical Activity Questionnaires for Pregnancy: A Systematic Review of Measurement Properties

Abstract

Background

Objectives

Methods

Results

Conclusions

At a glance: The STEP trials

Springer Medicine

Abstract

Background

Objectives

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Please log in to get access to this content

Other articles of this Issue 10/2018

The Effects of Balance Training on Balance Performance and Functional Outcome Measures Following Total Knee Arthroplasty: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Profiling the Responses of Soccer Substitutes: A Review of Current Literature

Correction to: The Effect of Acute Caffeine Ingestion on Endurance Performance: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

The Acute Metabolic and Vascular Impact of Interrupting Prolonged Sitting: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Intra- and Inter-Muscular Variations in Hamstring Architecture and Mechanics and Their Implications for Injury: A Narrative Review

Cricket Injury Epidemiology in the Twenty-First Century: What is the Burden?