Validity and responsiveness of the Daily- and Clinical visit-PROactive Physical Activity in COPD (D-PPAC and C-PPAC) instruments

García Aymerich, Judith; Puhan, Milo A.; Corriol-Rohou, Solange; de Jong, Corina; Demeyer, Heleen; Dobbels, Fabienne; Erzen, Damijan; Frei, Anja; Gimeno Santos, Elena, 1980-; Hopkinson, Nicholas S.; Ivanoff, Nathalie; Karlsson, Niklas; Louvaris, Zafeiris; Polkey, Michael I.; Rabinovich, Roberto A.; Scuri, Mario; Tabberer, Maggie; Vogiatzis, Ioannis; Troosters, Thierry; PROactive consortium

doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/thoraxjnl-2020-214554

Validity and responsiveness of the Daily- and Clinical visit-PROactive Physical Activity in COPD (D-PPAC and C-PPAC) instruments

Citation

Garcia-Aymerich J, Puhan MA, Corriol-Rohou S, de Jong C, Demeyer H, Dobbels F, Erzen D, Frei A, Gimeno-Santos E, Hopkinson NS, Ivanoff N, Karlsson N, Louvaris Z, Polkey MI, Rabinovich RA, Scuri M, Tabberer M, Vogiatzis I, Troosters T; PROactive consortium. Validity and responsiveness of the Daily- and Clinical visit-PROactive Physical Activity in COPD (D-PPAC and C-PPAC) instruments. Thorax. 2021 Mar;76(3):228-38. DOI: 10.1136/thoraxjnl-2020-214554

Abstract

Background: The Daily-PROactive and Clinical visit-PROactive Physical Activity (D-PPAC and C-PPAC) instruments in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) combines questionnaire with activity monitor data to measure patients' experience of physical activity. Their amount, difficulty and total scores range from 0 (worst) to 100 (best) but require further psychometric evaluation. Objective: To test reliability, validity and responsiveness, and to define minimal important difference (MID), of the D-PPAC and C-PPAC instruments, in a large population of patients with stable COPD from diverse severities, settings and countries. Methods: We used data from seven randomised controlled trials to evaluate D-PPAC and C-PPAC internal consistency and construct validity by sex, age groups, COPD severity, country and language as well as responsiveness to interventions, ability to detect change and MID. Results: We included 1324 patients (mean (SD) age 66 (8) years, forced expiratory volume in 1 s 55 (17)% predicted). Scores covered almost the full range from 0 to 100, showed strong internal consistency after stratification and correlated as a priori hypothesised with dyspnoea, health-related quality of life and exercise capacity. Difficulty scores improved after pharmacological treatment and pulmonary rehabilitation, while amount scores improved after behavioural physical activity interventions. All scores were responsive to changes in self-reported physical activity experience (both worsening and improvement) and to the occurrence of COPD exacerbations during follow-up. The MID was estimated to 6 for amount and difficulty scores and 4 for total score. Conclusions: The D-PPAC and C-PPAC instruments are reliable and valid across diverse COPD populations and responsive to pharmacological and non-pharmacological interventions and changes in clinically relevant variables.