Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Does the Relationship Between Physical Activity and Quality of Life Differ Based on Generic Versus Disease-Targeted Instruments?

  • Rapid Communication
  • Published:
Annals of Behavioral Medicine

Abstract

Background

There has been an increased interest in the study of physical activity and its relationship with quality of life (QOL) and health-related quality of life (HRQL) in chronic disease conditions. The investigations have used either generic or disease-targeted instruments for measuring QOL and HRQL, but have not examined differences in the associations as a function of the types of instruments.

Purpose

The present study examined the associations among physical activity, QOL, and HRQL using generic and disease-targeted instruments in persons with multiple sclerosis (MS).

Methods

Participants were 292 individuals with MS who wore an accelerometer for 7 days and then completed the Godin Leisure-Time Exercise Questionnaire (GLTEQ), Multiple Sclerosis Impact Scale-29 (MSIS-29), Leeds Multiple Sclerosis Quality of Life Scale (LMSQOL), Short Form-12 Health Survey (SF-12), and Satisfaction With Life Scale (SWLS).

Results

Accelerometer counts and GLTEQ scores had similarly sized correlations with scores from generic (SF-12) and the disease-specific (MSIS-29) measures of HRQL and generic (SWLS) and the disease-specific (LMSQOL) measures of QOL. Path analysis indicated a similar pattern of directional relationships between accelerometer counts and GLTEQ scores with physical and mental HRQL and, in turn, physical and mental HRQL with QOL using generic and disease-targeted instruments.

Conclusions

Our results suggest that in cross-sectional analysis, physical activity is similarly related with QOL and HRQL using generic and disease-targeted instruments in persons with MS.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

References

  1. Pavot W, Diener E. Review of the satisfaction with life scale. Psycholo Assess.. 1993; 5: 164–172.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Diener E, Emmons R, Larsen J, Griffin S. The satisfaction with life scale. J Pers Assess.. 1985; 49: 71–75.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Ware JF. SF-36 Health Survey: Manual interpretation guide. Boston, MA: The Health Institute; 1993.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Ware J, Sherbourne C. The MOS 36 item short-form health survey (SF-36). Med Care.. 1992; 36: 473–483.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. McAuley E, Konopack JF, Motl RW, et al. Physical activity and quality of life in older adults: Influence of health status and self-efficacy. Ann Behav Med.. 2006; 31: 99–103.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Stewart AL, King AC. Evaluating the efficacy of physical activity for influencing quality-of-life outcomes in older adults. Ann Behav Med.. 1991; 13: 108–116.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Elavsky S, McAuley E, Motl RW, et al. Physical activity enhances long-term quality of life in older adults: efficacy, esteem, and affective influences. Ann Behav Med.. 2005; 30: 138–145.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Hays RD. Generic versus disease-targeted instruments. In: Fayers P, Hays R, eds. Assessing quality of life in clinical trials. 2nd ed. New York, NY: Oxford University Publishers; 2005: 3–8.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Motl RW, Gosney JL. Effect of exercise training on quality of life in multiple sclerosis: A meta-analysis. Mult Scler.. 2008; 14: 129–135.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Godin G, Shephard RJ. A simple method to assess exercise behavior in the community. Can J Appl Sport Sci.. 1985; 10: 141–146.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Gosney JL, Scott JA, Snook EM, Motl RW. Physical activity and multiple sclerosis: Validity of self-report and objective measures. Fam Commun Health.. 2007; 30: 144–150.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Motl RW, McAuley E, Snook EM, Scott JA. Validity of physical activity measures in ambulatory individuals with multiple sclerosis. Disabil Rehabil.. 2006; 28: 1151–1156.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Motl RW, Zhu W, Park Y, et al. Reliability of scores from physical activity monitors in adults with multiple sclerosis. Adapt Phys Activ Q.. 2007; 24: 245–253.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Mâsse LC, Fuemmeler BF, Anderson CB, et al. Accelerometer data reduction: A comparison of four reduction algorithms on selected outcome variables. Med Sci Sports Exerc.. 2005; 11: S544–S554.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Ford HL, Gerry E, Tennant A, et al. Developing a disease-specific quality of life measure for people with multiple sclerosis. Clin Rehabil.. 2001; 15: 247–258.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Hobart J, Lamping D, Fitzpatrick R, et al. The Multiple Sclerosis Impact Scale (MSIS-29): A new patient-based outcome measure. Brain.. 2001; 124: 962–973.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Riazi A, Hobart JC, Lamping DL, et al. Multiple Sclerosis Impact Scale (MSIS-29): Reliability and validity in hospital based samples. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry.. 2002; 73: 701–704.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Ware JE, Kosinski M, Keller SD. A 12-item short-form health survey: Construction of scales and preliminary tests of reliability and validity. Med Care.. 1996; 34: 220–233.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Nortvedt MW, Riise T, Myhr K-M, Nyland HI. Performance of the SF-36, SF-12, and RAND-36 summary scales in a multiple sclerosis population. Med Care.. 2000; 38: 1022–1028.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Muthén LK, Muthén BO. Mplus. Los Angeles: Author; 1998.

    Google Scholar 

  21. Enders CK, Bandalos DL. The relative performance of full information maximum likelihood estimation for missing data in structural equation models. Struct Equat Model.. 2001; 8: 430–457.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Hu L, Bentler PM. Cutoff criteria for fit indices in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Struct Equat Model. 1999; 6: 1–55.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. National Multiple Sclerosis Society. Multiple sclerosis information sourcebook. New York, NY: Information Resource Center and Library of the National Multiple Sclerosis Society; 2005.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Kinesiology and Community Health, University of Illinois, 332 Freer Hall, Urbana, IL, 61801, USA

    Robert W. Motl Ph.D., Edward McAuley, Erin M. Snook & Rachael C. Gliottoni

Authors
  1. Robert W. Motl Ph.D.
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Edward McAuley
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Erin M. Snook
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Rachael C. Gliottoni
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Robert W. Motl Ph.D..

Additional information

Funded by the National Institute of Neurological Diseases and Stroke (NS054050).

About this article

Cite this article

Motl, R.W., McAuley, E., Snook, E.M. et al. Does the Relationship Between Physical Activity and Quality of Life Differ Based on Generic Versus Disease-Targeted Instruments?. ann. behav. med. 36, 93–99 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12160-008-9049-4

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12160-008-9049-4

Keywords

Search

Navigation