The Inventory of Physical Activity Barriers for Adults 50 Years and Older: Refinement and Validation

Exploring the implementation potential of physical activity assessment and prescription tools in physical therapy practice: a mixed-method study

BACKGROUND

Despite the benefits of physical activity (PA), especially related to aging, physical therapists do not perform regular PA prescriptions secondary to various barriers, including lack of tools. Therefore, we developed the Inventory of Physical Activity Barriers (IPAB).

OBJECTIVE

Explore potential solutions that could address the current lack of PA prescription among United States-based physical therapists treating patients 50 years and older.

METHOD

A convergent parallel mixed-method design consisting of focus groups and self-report questionnaires. Descriptive statistics were used for all quantitative variables. Focus groups were thematically coded.

RESULTS

The 26 participants had 8.6 years (SD = 6.4) of clinical experience, 88.4% (n = 23) reported they regularly have PA conversations with patients, 65.4% (n = 17) regularly assess PA levels, and 19.2% (n = 5) regularly provide PA prescriptions. We identified three themes: 1) opportunities and challenges related to PA prescriptions; 2) lack of standardization in PA assessments and interventions; and 3) implementation potential for innovative solutions that address the current informal PA assessments and interventions.

CONCLUSION

Physical therapists are amenable to incorporating innovative solutions that support physical activity prescription behavior. Therefore, we recommend the continued development and implementation of PA assessment and prescription tools.

Incorporating Physical Activity Assessments and Behavior Change Techniques Into Geriatrics

Ninety-one percent of adults 65 years and older do not perform the recommended levels of physical activity (PA), resulting in increased risk of disability, morbidity, and mortality. Despite knowing the benefits of PA and acknowledging the importance of assessing and addressing inadequate PA levels, 50%-75% of health care providers do not incorporate behavior change techniques into clinical practice. This clinical gap can be explained by a lack of knowledge or confidence in (1) assessing PA levels; (2) addressing inadequate PA levels; and (3) justifying the time needed to use these techniques in clinical practice. In this special communication, we address this gap by providing a 3-step theoretical-based clinical decision pathway that guides health care providers on how to identify older adults with inadequate PA levels, determine readiness to increase PA, and empower patents to develop an action plan that will increase their PA levels. We also provide a conceptual model that supports the use of techniques that assess and address inadequate PA by tying PA to the Age-Friendly Health System's 4Ms (ie, What Matters to the older adult, Mentation, Mobility, and Medications).

Examining physical activity participation barriers among adults 50 years and older: a scoping review

Background

Addressing physical activity (PA) barriers is essential for increasing PA levels in middle-aged and older adults. However, there are no recommendations on selecting PA barrier assessment tools.

Objectives

Thus, we aimed to identify and provide clinimetric properties on PA barrier assessment tools that healthcare providers, exercise experts, and public health officials can use to examine potential barriers faced by community-dwelling adults 50 years and older.

Methods

We performed a systematic search of the following databases: PubMed, PsycINFO, CINAHL, and Web of Science. Articles were included if they presented clinimetric data on a PA participation barrier assessment tool for community-dwelling participants with a mean age of 50 years and older. The 561 identified articles underwent multiple rounds of blinded reviews. Included articles underwent data extraction for participant characteristics, scoring, constructs, reference tests, and clinimetric properties.

Results

The 35 included articles reported on 33 different PA participation barrier assessment tools. Eighteen articles reported on participants with cardiovascular, musculoskeletal, or neurological diagnoses, diabetes, hemodialysis, history of cancer, or mobility limitations. Tools with two or more supporting publications included the Exercise Benefits/Barrier Scale (EBBS), Episode-Specific Interpretations of Exercise Inventory (ESIE), and Inventory of Physical Activity and Barriers (IPAB). Due to differences in methodologies, across-tool comparison was not possible.

Conclusion

The EBBS, ESIE, and IPAB are promising tools for community-dwelling adults 50 years and older. However, additional research is warranted to identify the best PA barrier assessment tool among adults 50 years and older.

Evaluation of Electronic and Pen-and-Paper Formats of the Inventory of Physical Activity Barriers: A Randomized Crossover Study

BACKGROUND

The Inventory of Physical Activity Barriers (IPAB) assesses physical activity participation barriers. Development, refinement, and psychometric evaluation of the IPAB occurred via an electronic format. However, various circumstances may require using a pen-and-paper format. As instrument formats are not always interchangeable, the authors aimed to establish whether 2 different formats (electronic and pen and paper) can be used interchangeably for the IPAB.

METHODS

This randomized crossover study included 66 community-dwelling adults aged 50 years and older (mean age = 73 [SD = 7.6]). Half the sample completed the electronic format of the IPAB first and the pen-and-paper format second, and the other half completed them in reverse order. Tests of equivalence and a Bland-Altman plot were performed.

RESULTS

The intraclass correlation coefficient between formats was .94, and kappa was .68. The mean difference between the 2 administration forms of the IPAB was 0.002 (P = .96). Both administration formats had high internal consistency (Cronbach alpha = .92 and .93) and illustrated construct validity (P ≤ .001 for both administration formats).

CONCLUSION

Pen-and-paper and electronic formats of the IPAB are equivalent and, thus, can be used interchangeably among non-Hispanic whites who are highly educated. The format should be used consistently if completing preintervention and postintervention evaluations or comparing scores.