Validity and reliability of Chinese version of Occupational Sitting and Physical Activity Questionnaire among intensive care nurses

doi:10.3969/j.issn.1674-8115.2022.11.010

Abstract

Abstract:

Objective ·To introduce and translate the Occupational Sitting and Physical Activity Questionnaire (OSPAQ), and evaluate the reliability and validity of the Chinese version of OSPAQ among intensive care nurses. Methods ·After the translation of OSPAQ, from March 2021 to July 2021, 113 intensive care nurses from two comprehensive tertiary first-class hospitals in Shanghai were conveniently selected as research objects. All participants wore ActiGraph wGT3X-BT accelerometer for 7 consecutive days, and then filled in the Chinese version of OSPAQ. Thirty nurses were retested after an interval of a week. Intraclass correlation coefficient was used to evaluate retest reliability. Criterion validity was assessed by using Spearman′s rank correlation coefficients and Bland-Altman plots. Results ·The sample included 113 intensive care nurses (20 nurses working in day shifts, and 93 nurses working in rotating shifts). The test-retest intraclass correlation coefficients for occupational sitting, standing, and walking in OSPAQ ranged from 0.766 to 0.882, which was evaluated as excellent. The test-retest intraclass correlation coefficients for heavy labour were 0.606, which was evaluated as acceptable. Spearman′s rank correlation coefficients for sitting (0.456) and walking (0.428) showed moderate associations, and that for standing (0.200) showed weak associations. Based on the analysis of the two subgroups, the Spearman′s rank correlation coefficients for sitting and walking showed strong associations among day shifts nurses, while those showed moderate associations among rotating shifts nurses. The Spearman′s rank correlation coefficients for standing showed weak or no associations among day shifts nurses and rotating shifts nurses. Bland-Altman consistency analysis showed that the consistency between the results of sitting posture, standing posture and walking measured by Chinese version OSPAQ and accelerometer was 93.8% to 94.7% in 113 nurses. When using Chinese version OSPAQ self-assessment, the time of sitting posture and standing posture was underestimated and the time of walking was overestimated. Conclusion ·The Chinese version of OSPAQ has good test-retest reliability and moderate validity for occupational sitting and walking among intensive care nurses. It is a simple and reliable assessment tool for occupational physical activity.

Key words: physical activity, reliability, validity, measurement, work, accelerometer

CLC Number:

R135

HUANG Kanghui, LI Mengyao, SHI Lan, ZHENG Ziyi, WEN Fule, ZHANG Yaqing. Validity and reliability of Chinese version of Occupational Sitting and Physical Activity Questionnaire among intensive care nurses[J]. Journal of Shanghai Jiao Tong University (Medical Science), 2022, 42(11): 1582-1588.

Figures/Tables 6

TrendMD

References 15

1	何静, 王军, 杨涛. 慢性下肢静脉疾病的流行病学研究现状[J]. 中国血管外科杂志(电子版), 2018, 10(1): 71-78.
	HE J, WANG J, YANG T. Epidemiology of chronic venous disease: current status[J]. Chin J Vasc Surg (Electronic Version), 2018, 10(1): 71-78.
2	VAN HOOF W, O′SULLIVAN K, O′KEEFFE M, et al. The efficacy of interventions for low back pain in nurses: a systematic review[J]. Int J Nurs Stud, 2018, 77: 222-231.
3	孙菲, 黄红铃, 江会, 等. 中英两国护士对自身体力活动及健康促进的态度与体验[J]. 中国实用护理杂志, 2013, 29(10): 12-16.
	SUN F, HUANG H L, JIANG H, et al. Nurses′ attitude to and experience of physical activity and associated health promotion in UK and China[J]. Chin J Prac Nurs, 2013, 29(10): 12-16.
4	ROSENBERGER M E, HASKELL W L, ALBINALI F, et al. Estimating activity and sedentary behavior from an accelerometer on the hip or wrist[J]. Med Sci Sports Exerc, 2013, 45(5): 964-975.
5	CHAU J Y, VAN DER PLOEG H P, DUNN S, et al. Validity of the occupational sitting and physical activity questionnaire[J]. Med Sci Sports Exerc, 2012, 44(1): 118-125.
6	JANCEY J, TYE M, MCGANN S, et al. Application of the Occupational Sitting and Physical Activity Questionnaire (OSPAQ) to office based workers[J]. BMC Public Health, 2014, 14: 762.
7	PEDERSEN S J, KITIC C M, BIRD M L, et al. Is self-reporting workplace activity worthwhile? Validity and reliability of occupational sitting and physical activity questionnaire in desk-based workers[J]. BMC Public Health, 2016, 16(1): 836.
8	DILLON K, HIEMSTRA M, MITCHELL M, et al. Validity of the occupational sitting and physical activity questionnaire (OSPAQ) for home-based office workers during the COVID-19 global pandemic: a secondary analysis[J]. Appl Ergon, 2021, 97: 103551.
9	MAES I, KETELS M, VAN DYCK D, et al. The occupational sitting and physical activity questionnaire (OSPAQ): a validation study with accelerometer-assessed measures[J]. BMC Public Health, 2020, 20(1): 1072.
10	王丽敏, 万巧琴, 谷水, 等. 临床护士感知的工作负荷水平及其对工作投入的影响[J]. 护理学杂志, 2020, 35(17): 57-61.
	WANG L M, WAN Q Q, GU S, et al. The level of self-rated workload among clinical nurses and its impact on work engagement[J]. J Nurs Sci, 2020, 35(17): 57-61.
11	李潮, 徐斐, 叶青, 等. 儿童青少年体力活动量表信效度评价[J]. 中华疾病控制杂志, 2019, 23(2): 172-175.
	LI C, XU F, YE Q, et al. Evaluation of an item-specific physical activity scale for Chinese children and adolescents(I-PASCA)[J]. Chin J Dis Control Prev, 2019, 23(2): 172-175.
12	CICCHETTI D V. Guidelines, criteria, and rules of thumb for evaluating normed and standardized assessment instruments in psychology[J]. Psychol Assess, 1994, 6(4):284-290.
13	COHEN J. Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences[M]. 2nd ed. Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 1988: 83.
14	CLELAND C, FERGUSON S, ELLIS G, et al. Validity of the International Physical Activity Questionnaire (IPAQ) for assessing moderate-to-vigorous physical activity and sedentary behaviour of older adults in the United Kingdom[J]. BMC Med Res Methodol, 2018, 18(1): 176.
15	WICK K, FAUDE O, SCHWAGER S, et al. Deviation between self-reported and measured occupational physical activity levels in office employees: effects of age and body composition[J]. Int Arch Occup Environ Health, 2016, 89(4): 575-582.

Characteristic	n （%）
Gender
Male	16 （14.16）
Female	97 （85.84）
Educational level
Junior college	38 （33.63）
Undergraduate	75 （66.37）
Marital status
Married	57 （50.44）
Unmarried	56 （49.56）
Age
≤29 years	54 （47.79）
30‒39 years	49 （43.36）
≥40 years	10 （8.85）
Seniority
≤5 years	49 （43.36）
6‒10 years	33 （29.20）
≥10 years	31 （27.43）
Practice department
ICU	50 （44.25）
EICU	32 （28.32）
RICU	16 （14.16）
CCU	15 （13.27）
Position
Nurse	104 （92.04）
Preceptor	3 （2.65）
Head Nurse	6 （5.31）
Clinical ladder of nurses^①
N0	3 （2.70）
N1	12 （10.60）
N2	80 （70.80）
N3	14 （12.39）
N4	4 （3.54）
BMI
<18.5 kg·m^-2	16 （14.16）
18.5‒23.9 kg·m^-2	77 （68.14）
24.0‒26.9 kg·m^-2	10 （8.85）
≥27.0 kg·m^-2	10 （8.85）
Number of valid work days of accelerometer
3	10 （8.85）
4	44 （38.94）
5	59 （52.21）
Working hours in the last week
32 h	5 （4.42）
36 h	10 （8.85）
40 h	68 （60.18）
44 h	17 （15.04）
48 h	13 （11.50）
Work schedule
Day shifts	20 （17.70）
Rotating shifts	93 （82.30）

Characteristic	n （%）
Gender
Male	16 （14.16）
Female	97 （85.84）
Educational level
Junior college	38 （33.63）
Undergraduate	75 （66.37）
Marital status
Married	57 （50.44）
Unmarried	56 （49.56）
Age
≤29 years	54 （47.79）
30‒39 years	49 （43.36）
≥40 years	10 （8.85）
Seniority
≤5 years	49 （43.36）
6‒10 years	33 （29.20）
≥10 years	31 （27.43）
Practice department
ICU	50 （44.25）
EICU	32 （28.32）
RICU	16 （14.16）
CCU	15 （13.27）
Position
Nurse	104 （92.04）
Preceptor	3 （2.65）
Head Nurse	6 （5.31）
Clinical ladder of nurses^①
N0	3 （2.70）
N1	12 （10.60）
N2	80 （70.80）
N3	14 （12.39）
N4	4 （3.54）
BMI
<18.5 kg·m^-2	16 （14.16）
18.5‒23.9 kg·m^-2	77 （68.14）
24.0‒26.9 kg·m^-2	10 （8.85）
≥27.0 kg·m^-2	10 （8.85）
Number of valid work days of accelerometer
3	10 （8.85）
4	44 （38.94）
5	59 （52.21）
Working hours in the last week
32 h	5 （4.42）
36 h	10 （8.85）
40 h	68 （60.18）
44 h	17 （15.04）
48 h	13 （11.50）
Work schedule
Day shifts	20 （17.70）
Rotating shifts	93 （82.30）

Item	Total sample （n=113）	Day shifts nurse （n=20）	Rotating shifts nurse （n=93）
Sitting/%
OSPAQ	29.00 （20.00， 30.50）	30.50 （25.50， 40.00）	25.00 （20.00， 30.00）
Accelerometer	36.00 （30.50， 42.00）	38.50 （33.25， 45.75）	36.00 （30.00， 42.00）
Standing/%
OSPAQ	30.00 （28.00， 37.50）	32.00 （26.00， 40.00）	30.00 （28.00， 36.00）
Accelerometer	35.00 （33.00， 38.00）	35.50 （34.00， 38.75）	35.00 （33.00， 38.00）
Walking/%
OSPAQ	33.00 （30.00， 40.00）	29.00 （20.25， 38.75）	35.00 （30.00， 40.00）
Accelerometer	27.00 （22.00， 33.00）	24.50 （20.00， 28.75）	28.00 （23.00， 33.00）
Heavy labour/%
OSPAQ	6.00 （0， 10.00）	2.00 （0， 8.00）	7.00 （0， 10.00）
Accelerometer	0 （0， 0）	0 （0， 0）	2.00 （0， 8.00）

Item	Total sample （n=113）	Day shifts nurse （n=20）	Rotating shifts nurse （n=93）
Sitting/%
OSPAQ	29.00 （20.00， 30.50）	30.50 （25.50， 40.00）	25.00 （20.00， 30.00）
Accelerometer	36.00 （30.50， 42.00）	38.50 （33.25， 45.75）	36.00 （30.00， 42.00）
Standing/%
OSPAQ	30.00 （28.00， 37.50）	32.00 （26.00， 40.00）	30.00 （28.00， 36.00）
Accelerometer	35.00 （33.00， 38.00）	35.50 （34.00， 38.75）	35.00 （33.00， 38.00）
Walking/%
OSPAQ	33.00 （30.00， 40.00）	29.00 （20.25， 38.75）	35.00 （30.00， 40.00）
Accelerometer	27.00 （22.00， 33.00）	24.50 （20.00， 28.75）	28.00 （23.00， 33.00）
Heavy labour/%
OSPAQ	6.00 （0， 10.00）	2.00 （0， 8.00）	7.00 （0， 10.00）
Accelerometer	0 （0， 0）	0 （0， 0）	2.00 （0， 8.00）

Item	Total sample （n=113）	Day shifts nurse （n=20）	Rotating shifts nurse （n=93）
Sitting/%	0.456^①	0.570^②	0.425^①
Standing/%	0.200^③	-0.045	0.250^④
Walking/%	0.428^①	0.660^⑤	0.339^⑥
Heavy labour/%	n/a	n/a	n/a