■为了确定在控制社会人口统计学的同时,对身体活动的主观和客观评估之间是否存在差异,人体测量学,和临床特征。
■在三个国家的八个地点共有810名参与者。
■主观工具是运动行为自我效能量表的两个子量表:抽出时间进行运动和抵抗复发以及患者报告的结果测量信息系统,测量身体功能。功能性运动能力的客观测量是6分钟步行测试。
■使用单变量和多变量分析。
■身体功能与锻炼时间(β=1.76,p=0.039)显着相关,但与抵抗复发(β=1.16,p=.168)无关。年龄(β=-1.88,p=.001),被雇用(β=16.19,p<.001)和种族(βs=13.84-31.98,p<.001),臀腰比(β=-2.18,p<.001),合并症(β=7.31,p<.001)是身体功能的重要预测因子。预测身体功能的模型占了很大的方差(调整后的R2=.938)。预测功能性运动能力的结果模式相似。锻炼时间自我效能得分显着预测功能性运动能力(β=0.14,p=0.029),并且抵抗复发评分再次没有(β=-0.10,p=.120)。在协变量中,年龄(β=-0.16,p<.001),性别(β=-0.43,p<.001),教育(β=0.08,p=0.026),和腰腰比(β=0.09,p=0.034)是显著的。该模型没有说明数据的总体差异(调整后的R2=.081)。我们发现身体功能和功能性运动能力之间存在适度的显着关系(r=0.27)。
■在身体功能和功能锻炼能力方面,锻炼自我效能比抵抗复发更重要。促进身体活动成就的干预需要使用多种测量策略。
To determine if there were differences between the subjective and objective assessments of physical activity while controlling for sociodemographic, anthropometric, and clinical characteristics.
A total of 810 participants across eight sites located in three countries.
Subjective instruments were the two subscales of Self-efficacy for Exercise Behaviors Scale: Making Time for Exercise and Resisting Relapse and Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System, which measured physical function. The objective measure of functional exercise capacity was the 6-minute Walk Test.
Both univariate and multivariant analyses were used.
Physical function was significantly associated with Making Time for Exercise (β = 1.76, p = .039) but not with Resisting Relapse (β = 1.16, p = .168). Age (β = -1.88, p = .001), being employed (β = 16.19, p < .001) and race (βs = 13.84-31.98, p < .001), hip-waist ratio (β = -2.18, p < .001), and comorbidities (β = 7.31, p < .001) were significant predictors of physical functioning. The model predicting physical function accounted for a large amount of variance (adjusted R2 = .938). The patterns of results predicting functional exercise capacity were similar. Making Time for Exercise self-efficacy scores significantly predicted functional exercise capacity (β = 0.14, p = .029), and Resisting Relapse scores again did not (β = -0.10, p = .120). Among the covariates, age (β = -0.16, p < .001), gender (β = -0.43, p < .001), education (β = 0.08, p = .026), and hip-waist ratio (β = 0.09, p = .034) were significant. This model did not account for much of the overall variance in the data (adjusted R2 = .081). We found a modest significant relationship between physical function and functional exercise capacity (r = 0.27).
Making Time for Exercise Self-efficacy was more significant than Resisting Relapse for both physical function and functional exercise capacity. Interventions to promote achievement of physical activity need to use multiple measurement strategies.