Search

Objective: To create, develop, and validate a scale that identifies the environmental and personal barriers that make it difficult to adhere to the practice of physical exercise on a regular basis in a population of Brazilian adults. Methods: We include adult individuals, aged 18–59 years, practitioners or former practitioners of physical exercise, with Brazilian Portuguese as their mother tongue. In the development and validation phases of the process, 6 specialists in the field of the health assessed the content validity: firstly, the specialists were asked to freely list the questions they would ask to investigate the barriers to adherence to regulating physical activity. Secondly, after compiling all the suggestions listed and eliminating suggestions with similar content, the items suggested in the first round were sent to the specialists so that an evaluation of all questions using a 5-point Likert scale and the content validity coefficient was calculated. We then evaluated the structural validity, construct validity, reliability, internal consistency, and ceiling and floor effects of the Regular Physical Exercise Adherence Scale (REPEAS). Results: Sixteen items were proposed to measure the factors that make it difficult to adhere to the regular practice of physical exercise. The internal structure of the REPEAS initially tested was based on the theoretical proposal of creating the instrument with two domains. After the structural analysis, we used the modification indices to identify the redundant items of the instrument. Consequently, the final version of the REPEAS after factor analysis had 12 items. Thus, the structure with 2 domains and 12 items presented adequate fit indices. With regard to construct validity, the REPEAS scores were compared in two distinct groups: irregular practitioners/ex-practitioners versus regular practitioners of physical exercise, in which a significant difference could be observed between groups (p < 0.001) for both the domains. Acceptable reliability was observed for the environment and personal domains, with ICC values of 0.86 and 0.94, in the same order. For internal consistency, Cronbach's alpha value was 0.908 (environmental domain) and 0.915 (personal domain), these values being adequate for the REPEAS. Conclusion: The REPEAS is a scale with a valid two-dimensional internal structure, consisting of 12 items, reliable and with a valid construct, which supports its use in the clinical, epidemiological, and research contexts in Brazil. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: A previous qualitative assessment of the psychosocial consequences of labelling hypertension describes the diagnosis of hypertension as a labelling event with potential unintended negative long-term psychosocial consequences (labelling effects). Until now, the benefits of diagnosing hypertension have been far more reported than the harms. To obtain the net result of the preventive interventions for cardiovascular disease, such as diagnosing and treating mild hypertension, assessing benefits and harms in the most comprehensive way possible is necessary, including the psychosocial consequences of labelling. When measuring psychosocial consequences of labelling hypertension, a questionnaire with high content validity and adequate psychometric properties is needed. Objectives: The aim of this study was to describe the psychometric parameters of face and content-validated pool of items. Other objectives were also to screen the item pool by using Rasch model analysis and confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) for identifying such items with sufficient fit to the hypothesised models. Methods: We surveyed the pool of items as a draft questionnaire to Brazilians recruited via social networks, sending e-mails, WhatsApp® messages and posting on Facebook®. The inclusion criteria were to be older than 18 years old, to be healthy and to have only hypertension. We used Rasch model analysis to screen the item pool, discarding items that did not fit the hypothesised domain. We searched for local dependence and differential item functioning. We used CFA to confirm the derived measurement models and complementarily assessed reliability using Cronbach's coefficient alpha. Results: The validation sample consisted of 798 respondents. All 798 respondents completed Part I, whereas 285 (35.7%)—those with hypertension—completed Part II. A condition-specific questionnaire with high content validity and adequate psychometric properties was developed for people labelled with hypertension. This measure is called 'Consequences of Labelling Hypertension Questionnaire' and covers the psychosocial consequences of labelling hypertension in two parts, encompassing a total of 71 items in 15 subscales and 11 single items. Conclusion: We developed a tool that can be used in future research involving hypertension, especially in scenarios of screening, prevention, population strategies and in intervention studies. Future use and testing of the questionnaire may still be required. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]