چکیده (انگلیسی):

Background:Insufficient physical activity (PA) levels which increase the risk of chronic disease are reported by
almost two-thirds of the population. More evidence is needed about how PA promotion can be effectively
implemented in general practice (GP), particularly in socio-economically disadvantaged communities. One tool
recommended for the assessment of PA in GP and supported by NICE (National Institute for Health and Care
Excellence) is The General Practice Physical Activity Questionnaire (GPPAQ) but details of how it may be used and
of its acceptability to practitioners and patients are limited. This study aims to examine aspects of GPPAQ
administration in non-urgent patient contacts using different primary care electronic recording systems and to
explore the views of health professionals regarding its use.
Methods:Four general practices, selected because of their location within socio-economically disadvantaged areas,
were invited to administer GPPAQs to patients, aged 35-75 years, attending non-urgent consultations, over two-week
periods. They used different methods of administration and different electronic medical record systems (EMIS, Premiere,
Vision). Participants’ (general practitioners (GPs), nurses and receptionists) views regarding GPPAQ use were explored via
questionnaires and focus groups.
Results:Of 2,154 eligible consultations, 192 (8.9%) completed GPPAQs; of these 83 (43%) were categorised as inactive.
All practices were located within areas ranked as being in the tertile of greatest socio-economic deprivation in Northern
Ireland. GPs/nurses in two practices invited completion of the GPPAQ, receptionists did so in two. One practice used an
electronic template; three used paper copies of the questionnaires.
End-of-study questionnaires, completed by 11 GPs, 3 nurses and 2 receptionists and two focus groups, with GPs (n = 8)
and nurses (n = 4) indicated that practitioners considered the GPPAQ easy to use but not in every consultation. Its use
extended consultation time, particularly for patients with complex problems who could potentially benefit from
PA promotion.
Conclusions:GPs and nurses reported that the GPPAQ itself was an easy tool with which to assess PA levels in general
practice and feasible to use in a range of electronic record systems but integration within routine practice is constrained
by time and complex consultations. Further exploration of ways to facilitate PA promotion into practice is needed.