Hostname: page-component-7dd5485656-npwhs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-10-31T22:27:44.215Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Physical activity monitoring in Europe. The European Physical Activity Surveillance System (EUPASS) approach and indicator testing

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 January 2007

A Rütten ,
A Vuillemin ,
WTM Ooijendijk ,
F Schena ,
M Sjöström ,
T Stahl ,
Y Vanden Auweele ,
J Welshman  and
H Ziemainz
A Rütten*
Affiliation:
University of Erlangen–Nuremberg, Institute of Sport Science, Gebbertstrasse 123, D-91056 Erlangen, Germany
A Vuillemin
Affiliation:
University Henri Poincaré–Nancy 1, Nancy, France
WTM Ooijendijk
Affiliation:
TNO Prevention and Health, Leiden, The Netherlands
F Schena
Affiliation:
Centro Interuniversitario Europeo per le Scienze Sportive ECUS, Rovereto, Italy
M Sjöström
Affiliation:
Karolinska Institute, Stockholm, Sweden
T Stahl
Affiliation:
Jyväskylän Yliopisto, Jyväskylä, Finland
Y Vanden Auweele
Affiliation:
Katholiek Universiteit Leuven, Leuven, Belgium
J Welshman
Affiliation:
Lancaster University, Lancaster, UK
H Ziemainz
Affiliation:
University of Erlangen–Nuremberg, Institute of Sport Science, Gebbertstrasse 123, D-91056 Erlangen, Germany
*
*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 main objective of this paper is to describe the approach and specific findings of the European Physical Activity Surveillance System (EUPASS) research project. In particular, the analysis presented aims at testing the reliability, comparability and predictive power of different sets of physical activity (PA) indicators.

Design:

First, a panel study based on computer-aided telephone interview (CATI) was designed to report PA data of a representative, selected group of about 100 persons per country at three points in time. Second, a CATI time series survey was carried out with the goal of realising about 100 interviews per month over six consecutive months.

Setting:

The project was carried out in eight European countries to support the development of the European Union's (EU) Health Monitoring Programme.

Subjects:

Random population samples (subjects aged 18 years and older) were drawn from each participating country.

Results:

While many PA indicators used in EU countries to date as well as the psychosocial and environmental measures tested in the present study had acceptable to good reliability coefficients, the test–retest reliability scores of the International Physical Activity Questionnaire (IPAQ) version tested (the short (last 7 days) telephone interview IPAQ; IPAQ-S7T) were rather low. The comparability between extant national PA items and the IPAQ-S7T was low for all countries. The strongest predictors of perceived health were the psychosocial and environmental PA indicators.

Conclusions:

According to the results of the present study, more research is needed to further investigate and improve the quality of the IPAQ. In addition, the specific predictive power of the tested psychosocial and environmental PA indicators on perceived health should be of particular interest for designing health surveillance activities in the future.

Keywords

Physical activityMonitoringIndicator testingPublic health

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
Public Health Nutrition , Volume 6 , Issue 4 , June 2003 , pp. 377 - 384
Copyright
Copyright © CABI Publishing 2003

References

1Bouchard, C, Shepard, R, Stephens, T, eds. Physical Activity, Fitness and Health. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics, 1994.CrossRefGoogle 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.CrossRefGoogle 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
4Vuori, I, Oja, P, Stahl, T. Promoting of Health-enhancing Physical Activity. A Preparatory European Meeting. Tampere, Finland: UKK Institute, 1996.Google Scholar
5King, AC. How to promote physical activity in a community: research experiences from the US highlighting different community approaches. Patient Education and Counselling 1995; 85: 1207–11.Google Scholar
6McQueen, D, Puska, P, eds. Global Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance. New York: Kluwer, in press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
7McQueen, D. A world behaving badly: the global challenge for behavioral surveillance. American Journal of Public Health 1999; 89: 1312–4.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
8Rütten, A, Ziemainz, H, Schena, F, Stahl, T, Stiggelbout, M, Vanden Auweele, Y, et al. Using different physical activity measurements in eight European countries. Results of the European Physical Activity Surveillance System (EUPASS) time series survey. Public Health Nutrition 2003; 6: 371–6.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
9Rzewnicki, R, De Bourdeaudhuij, I, Stahl, T, Welshman, J, Vanden Auweele, Y, Ziemainz, H. How methods affect measures of physical activity in eight European countries: the Eupass experience. Public Health Nutrition submitted for publication.Google Scholar
10Sallis, JF, Owen, N. Physical Activity and Behavioral Medicine. London: Sage, 1999.Google Scholar
11De Bourdeaudhuij, I, Van Oost, P, Mommerency, G. Daily physical activity in adolescents and young adults. Archives of Public Health 1993; 51(9–10): 407–24.Google Scholar
12De Bourdeaudhuij, I, Van Oost, P. Differences in level and determinants of leisure-time physical activity between men and women in 3 population-based samples. Archives of Public Health 1994; 52(1–2): 21–45.Google Scholar
13Rütten, A, Lüschen, G, von Lengerke, T, Abel, T, Kannas, L, Rodriguez Diaz, JA. Health Promotion Policy in Europe.Rationality, Impact, and Evaluation. Munich: Oldenbourg, 2000.Google Scholar
14Rütten, A, Abel, T, Kannas, L, von Lengerke, T, Luschen, G, Diaz, JA, et al. Self reported physical activity, public health, public health, and environment: results from a comparative European study. Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health 2001; 55: 139–46.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
15Stahl, T, Rütten, A, Nutbeam, D, Bauman, A, Kannas, L, Abel, T, The importance of the social environment for physically active lifestyle – results from an international study. Social Science and Medicine 2001; 52: 1–10.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
16Idler, EL, Benyamini, Y. Self-rated health and mortality: a review of twenty-seven community studies. Journal of Health and Social Behavior 1997; 38: 21–37.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
17Van Buuren, S, Eyres, S, Tennant, A, Hopman-Rock, M. Response Conversion: A New Technology for Comparing Existing Health Information. Leiden, The Netherlands: TNO Prevention and Health, 2001.Google Scholar