Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-g7gxr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-11T07:38:50.243Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Using different physical activity measurements in eight European countries. Results of the European Physical Activity Surveillance System (EUPASS) time series survey

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 January 2007

A Rütten ,
H Ziemainz ,
F Schena ,
T Stahl ,
M Stiggelbout ,
Y Vanden Auweele ,
A Vuillemin  and
J Welshman
A Rütten*
Affiliation:
University of Erlangen–Nuremberg, Institute of Sport Science and Sport, Gebbertstrasse 123, D-91056 Erlangen, Germany
H Ziemainz
Affiliation:
University of Erlangen–Nuremberg, Institute of Sport Science and Sport, Gebbertstrasse 123, D-91056 Erlangen, Germany
F Schena
Affiliation:
Centro Interuniversitario Europeo per le Scienze Sportive ECUS, Rovereto, Italy
T Stahl
Affiliation:
Jyväskylän Yliopisto, Jyväskylä, Finland
M Stiggelbout
Affiliation:
TNO Prevention and Health, Leiden, The Netherlands
Y Vanden Auweele
Affiliation:
Katholiek Universiteit Leuven, Leuven, Belgium
A Vuillemin
Affiliation:
University Henri Poincaré–Nancy 1, Nancy, France
J Welshman
Affiliation:
Lancaster University, Lancaster, UK
*
*Corresponding author: Email alfred.ruetten@sport.uni-erlangen.de
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.
Objectives:

The European Physical Activity Surveillance System (EUPASS) research project compared several physical activity (PA) measures (including the International Physical Activity Questionnaire (IPAQ)) in a time series survey in eight countries of the European Union. The present paper describes first results provided by the different instruments regarding PA participation, frequency and duration, both at the European and national levels. The purpose of the present study is to explore and compare the specific quality and usefulness of different indicators rather than to provide valid and reliable prevalence data. Thus, the main focus is on discussion of the methodological implications of the results presented.

Methods:

A time series survey based on computer-aided telephone interviewing (CATI) was carried out in eight European countries over a six-month period. The study provided for about 100 realised interviews per month in each country (i.e. ~600 per country). Descriptive statistical analysis was used to: (1) report IPAQ results on vigorous, moderate and light PA and sitting, as well as on the overall measure of calories expenditure (MET min−1), in the different countries; (2) compare these results with national PA indicators tested in EUPASS; and (3) compare IPAQ results with other European studies.

Results:

First, the scores for the different PA categories as well as for the overall measure of calories expenditure provided by the IPAQ appeared rather high compared with previous studies and public health recommendations. Second, the different PA measurements used in EUPASS provided completely different results. For example, national indicators used in Germany and The Netherlands to date neither corresponded in absolute values (e.g. means of PA or sitting) nor correlated with the IPAQ in any significant way. Third, comparing EU countries, the ranking for vigorous, moderate and light activities by use of the IPAQ differed from that of other European studies. For example, in the present analysis, German respondents generally showed higher scores for PA than the Finns and the Dutch, while, in contrast, findings from other studies ranked Finland before The Netherlands and Germany.

Conclusions:

The present analysis highlights some methodological implications of the IPAQ instrument. Among other things, differences in overall scores for PA as well as in the ranking of nations between the present results using IPAQ and other measures and studies may partly be due to the concepts of PA behind the measurements. Further analysis should investigate if the range of PA-related categories provided by the IPAQ is fully appropriate to measure all relevant daily activities; it may also consider the public health implications of mixing up different contexts of PA (e.g. work, leisure-time, transportation) in the IPAQ short version.

Keywords

Physical activityMeasurementPublic healthInternational comparison
Type
Research Article
Information
Public Health Nutrition , Volume 6 , Issue 4 , June 2003 , pp. 371 - 376
Copyright
Copyright © CABI Publishing 2003

References

1Bouchard, C, Shepard, R, Stephens, T, eds. Physical Activity, Fitness and Health. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics 1994.Google Scholar
2Blair, SN, Booth, M, Gyarfas, I, Iwane, H, Marti, B, Matsudo, V, et al. Development of public policy and physical activity initiatives internationally. Sports Medicine 1996; 3: 157–63.Google Scholar
3US Department of Health and Human Services. Physical Activity and Health: A Report of the Surgeon General. Atlanta, GA: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 1996.Google Scholar
4Pate, RR, Pratt, M, Blair, SN, Haskell, WL, Macera, CA, Bouchard, C, et al. Physical activity and public health. A recommendation from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the American College of Sports Medicine. Journal of the American Medical Association 1995; 273: 402–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
5Vuori, I, Oja, P, Stahl, T. Promoting of Health-enhancing Physical Activity. A Preparatory European Meeting. Tampere, Finland: UKK Institute, 1996.Google Scholar
6Rütten, A, Vuillemin, A, Ooijendijk, WTM, Schena, F, Sjöström, M, Stahl, T, et al. Physical activity monitoring in Europe. The European Physical Activity Surveillance System (EUPASS) approach and indicator testing. Public Health Nutrition 2003; 6: 377–84.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
7Ainsworth, B, Haskell, W, Whitt, MC, Irwin, ML, Swatz, AM, Strath, SJ, et al. Compendium of physical activities: an update of activity codes and MET intensities. Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise 2000; 32(Suppl. 9): S498–504.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
8Rzewnicki, R, De Bourdeaudhuij, I, Stahl, T, Welshman, J, Vanden, Auweele, Ziemainz, H. How methods affect measures of physical activity in eight European countries: the Eupass experience. Public Health Nutrition submitted for publicationGoogle Scholar
9Rütten, A, Lüschen, G, von Lengerke, T, Abel, T, Kannas, L, Rodriguez Diaz, JA. Health Promotion Policy in Europe.Rationality, Impact, and Evaluation München: Oldenbourg, 2000.Google Scholar
10European Commission, Directorate-General for Employment, Industrial Relations and Social Affairs. A Pan-EU Survey on Consumer Attitudes to Physical Activity, Body-weight and Health. Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities, 1999.Google Scholar
11McQueen, D, Puska, P, eds. Global Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance. New York: Kluwer, in press.Google Scholar