Abstract
Background
Addressing physical activity (PA) barriers is essential for increasing PA levels in middle-aged and older adults. However, there are no recommendations on selecting PA barrier assessment tools.
Objectives
Thus, we aimed to identify and provide clinimetric properties on PA barrier assessment tools that healthcare providers, exercise experts, and public health officials can use to examine potential barriers faced by community-dwelling adults 50 years and older.
Methods
We performed a systematic search of the following databases: PubMed, PsycINFO, CINAHL, and Web of Science. Articles were included if they presented clinimetric data on a PA participation barrier assessment tool for community-dwelling participants with a mean age of 50 years and older. The 561 identified articles underwent multiple rounds of blinded reviews. Included articles underwent data extraction for participant characteristics, scoring, constructs, reference tests, and clinimetric properties.
Results
The 35 included articles reported on 33 different PA participation barrier assessment tools. Eighteen articles reported on participants with cardiovascular, musculoskeletal, or neurological diagnoses, diabetes, hemodialysis, history of cancer, or mobility limitations. Tools with two or more supporting publications included the Exercise Benefits/Barrier Scale (EBBS), Episode-Specific Interpretations of Exercise Inventory (ESIE), and Inventory of Physical Activity and Barriers (IPAB). Due to differences in methodologies, across-tool comparison was not possible.
Conclusion
The EBBS, ESIE, and IPAB are promising tools for community-dwelling adults 50 years and older. However, additional research is warranted to identify the best PA barrier assessment tool among adults 50 years and older.
Acknowledgements
We would like to acknowledge the contributions made by Nancy Bianchi, a librarian at the University of Vermont, for her guidance on identifying appropriate search terms and for completing the searches.
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.