Comparison Of The Exercise Vital Signs (EVS) Questionnaire With Accelerometry In People Living With HIV

Abstract

Physical activity (PA) is vital for the improvement of overall health among people with chronic diseases, including people living with HIV (PLWH). However, very limited information is available on the measurement properties of brief PA questionnaires used to evaluate PA behaviors in PLWH in clinical settings where time and resources are limited. PURPOSE: To compare the moderate-to-vigorous intensity PA (MVPA) as evaluated by the EVS questionnaire to objectively-measured PA (i.e., accelerometry), and to evaluate the test-retest reliability of the EVS questionnaire in PLWH. METHODS: Participants living with HIV (mean age 54.3 years; 48% females) from New York City (NYC) were asked to wear an accelerometer at the hip for at least 7 days and to complete the EVS questionnaire at the beginning (T1) and end (T2) of the wear period. The Crouter 2 regression model was utilized to determine accelerometer derived MVPA. The relationship between EVS-determined MVPA minutes/day and accelerometer-determined MVPA minutes/day was evaluated using Spearman’s rho (ρ). The reliability of the questionnaire was calculated using intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) between EVS responses at T1 and T2. RESULTS: Eighty-two participants were included in the analyses. The mean CD4 T-cell count was 755 cells/μL (SD = 333.1) and 83% had undetectable viral load. Participants wore the device for 5.9 days and 19.7 h/d, on average. EVS-determined mean MVPA minutes/day were 45.4 (28.0) minutes at T1 and 45.0 (28.2) minutes at T2. The accelerometer-determined mean MVPA minutes/day was 151.8 (77.0). A weak but significant positive correlation was observed between the accelerometer-determined MVPA minutes/day and the EVS MVPA minutes/day at T2 (ρ = 0.302, P = .009). The mean difference between the EVS- and accelerometer-determined MVPA time was -103.1 (95% CI: -117.9 to -88.4) min/day. The reliability for the EVS questionnaire was excellent (ICC = 0.915). CONCLUSIONS: The EVS underestimates PA in PLWH when compared to accelerometry. Caution should be used when utilizing the EVS questionnaire in PLWH in the clinical setting.