How well do physical activity questions perform? A European cognitive testing study

Background

Only few studies have focused on the cognitive processes of the respondents that are involved when answering physical activity questionnaires (PAQs). This study aimed at examining whether two PAQs work as intended with different segments of the survey population in different cultural settings in Europe.

Methods

The International Physical Activity Questionnaire - Short Form (IPAQ-SF) and the US National Health Interview Survey - Adult Core Physical Activity Questionnaire (NHIS-PAQ) were tested in Belgium, Estonia, Germany and the UK using a standardized cognitive interviewing procedure. IPAQ-SF measures total vigorous physical activity (PA), moderate PA, walking and sitting. NHIS-PAQ measures leisure-time vigorous PA, light and moderate PA and muscle-strengthening PA. In total 62 persons completed cognitive interviews, at least 15 interviews were conducted in each country.

Results

Both PAQs performed as intended with young and high-skilled persons and those having a regular exercise schedule. For the others, however, the testing revealed that problems occurred with both PAQs relating to understanding the concepts of ‘(light and) moderate’ and ‘vigorous’ PA, classifying activities into the provided answer options of different PA intensities, recalling instances of ‘normal’ activities such as walking and sitting, and calculating the total duration of more than one activity or instance of an activity. The revealed problems with the questionnaires were quite similar in different countries; profound cultural differences were not observed.

Conclusions

Both questionnaires were difficult to answer for many respondents and rather user-unfriendly. They are designed to measure an exactness of PA quantity (frequency and duration) and intensity which would be desirable to obtain from a scientific point of view; however, respondents can hardly provide this information for cognitive reasons. Studies investigating the respondents’ perspective are useful for improving physical activity information based on self-reports.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s13690-015-0109-5) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Improved testing of recent HIV-1 infections with the BioRad avidity assay compared to the limiting antigen avidity assay and BED Capture enzyme immunoassay: evaluation using reference sample panels from the German Seroconverter Cohort

Background

The variety and limitations of current laboratory methods for estimating HIV-incidence has driven attempts to improve and standardize the performance of serological ‘Tests for Recent HIV-Infections’ (TRI). Primary and follow-up HIV-1 positive plasma samples from individuals with well-defined dates of infection collected as part of the German Seroconverter Cohort provided specimens highly suitable for use in comparing the performance of three TRIs: the AWARE™ BED™ EIA HIV-1 Incidence test (BED-CEIA), Genetic systems HIV-1/HIV-2 Plus O EIA antibody avidity-based assay (BioRad Avidity) and Sedia™ HIV-1 LAg Avidity EIA (LAg Avidity).

Methods

The evaluation panel included 180 specimens: 44 from antiretroviral (ARV)-naïve individuals with recently acquired HIV-infection (≤130 days; 25 B and 19 non-B subtypes) and 136 from long-term (>12 months) infected individuals [101 ARV-naïve subtype B, 16 non-B subtypes, 14 ARV-treated individuals, 5 slow progressors (SLP)].

Results

For long-term infected, ARV-naïve individuals the false recent rates (FRR) of both the BioRad and LAg Avidity assays were 2% (2/101 for subtype B) and 6% (1/16 for subtype ‘non-B’), while the FRR of the BED-CEIA was 7% (7/101 for subtype B) and 25% (4/16 for subtype ‘non-B’) (all p>0.05). Misclassification of ARV-treated individuals and SLP was rare by LAg (1/14, 0/5) and BioRad Avidity assays (2/14, 1/5) but more frequent by BED-CEIA (5/14, 3/5). Among recently-infected individuals (subtype B), 60% (15/25) were correctly classified by BED-CEIA, 88% (22/25) by BioRad Avidity and significantly fewer by LAg (48%, 12/25) compared to BioRad Avidity (p = 0.005) with a higher true-recency rate among non-B infections for all assays.

Conclusions

This study using well-characterized specimens demonstrated lower FRRs for both avidity methods than with the BED-CEIA. For recently infected individuals the BioRad Avidity assay was shown to give the most accurate results.