Back to Search
Start Over
Using postal questionnaires to evaluate physical activity and diet behaviour change: case study exploring implications of valid responder characteristics in interpreting intervention outcomes
- Source :
- BMC Research Notes, Cole, J A, Gillespie, P, Smith, S M, Byrne, M, Murphy, A W & Cupples, M E 2014, ' Using postal questionnaires to evaluate physical activity and diet behaviour change: case study exploring implications of valid responder characteristics in interpreting intervention outcomes. ', BMC Research Notes, vol. 7, no. 725 . https://doi.org/doi:10.1186/1756-0500-7-725
- Publisher :
- Springer Nature
-
Abstract
- Background: Patient reported outcome measures (PROMs) are used to evaluate lifestyle interventions but littleis known about differences between patients returning valid and invalid responses, or of potential for bias inevaluations. We aimed to examine the characteristics of patients who returned valid responses to lifestylequestionnaires compared to those whose responses were invalid for evaluating lifestyle change. Methods: We conducted a secondary data analysis from the SPHERE Study, a trial of an intervention to improveoutcomes for patients with coronary heart disease in primary care. Postal questionnaires were used to assessphysical activity (Godin) and diet (DINE) among study participants at baseline and 18 month follow-up. Three binaryresponse variables were generated for analysis: (1) valid Godin score; (2) valid DINE Fibre score; and (3) validDINE Total Fat score. Multivariate analysis comprised generalised estimating equation regression to examine theassociation of patients’ characteristics with their return of valid responses at both timepoints. Results: Overall, 92.1% of participants (832/903) returned questionnaires at both baseline and 18 months. Relativelyfewer valid Godin scores were returned by those who left school aged 5 mmol)(34.7%) than those with a lower cholesterol (44.4%) but multivariate analysis identified that only school leaving age(p = 0.047) was of statistical significance.Relatively fewer valid DINE scores were returned by manual than non-manual workers (fibre: 80.8% v 86.8%;fat: 71.2% v 80.0%), smokers (fibre: 72.6% v 84.7%; fat: 67.5% v 76.9%), patients with diabetes (fibre: 75.9% v 82.9%;fat: 66.9% v 75.8%) and those with cholesterol >5 mmol (fat: 68.2% v 76.2%) but multivariate analysis showedstatistical significance only for smoking (fibre: p = 0.013; fat: p = 0.045), diabetes (fibre: p = 0.039; fat: p = 0.047), andcholesterol (fat: p = 0.039). Conclusions: Our findings illustrate the importance of detailed reporting of research methods, with clearinformation about response rates, respondents and valid outcome data. Outcome measures which are relevant to astudy population should be chosen carefully. The impact of methods of outcome measurement and valid responserates in evaluating healthcare requires further study.
- Subjects :
- Research design
Male
Multivariate analysis
Time Factors
Estimating equations
PROMs
Risk Factors
Surveys and Questionnaires
Secondary Prevention
postal
Aged, 80 and over
Medicine(all)
Self report questionnaires
General Medicine
Middle Aged
Treatment Outcome
Research Design
Population study
Patient-reported outcome
Female
Research Article
Adult
medicine.medical_specialty
Heart Diseases
Northern Ireland
Motor Activity
General Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
Diabetes mellitus
Statistical significance
medicine
Humans
Postal Service
Life Style
Aged
business.industry
Physical activity
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology(all)
Reproducibility of Results
Secondary data
questionnaires
medicine.disease
Lifestyle
Diet
Socioeconomic Factors
Multivariate Analysis
Physical therapy
Patient Compliance
Self Report
business
diet
Ireland
Risk Reduction Behavior
Research methods
Subjects
Details
- Language :
- English
- ISSN :
- 17560500
- Volume :
- 7
- Issue :
- 1
- Database :
- OpenAIRE
- Journal :
- BMC Research Notes
- Accession number :
- edsair.doi.dedup.....50eb7be3806577bdccdf30f8b6423a99
- Full Text :
- https://doi.org/10.1186/1756-0500-7-725