Telephone Administration of the Human Activity Profile Questionnaire in Patients With Cardiovascular Disease: Methodological Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: The Human Activity Profile (HAP) questionnaire is widely used to assess functional capacity in patients with chronic diseases. However, its remote administration via telephone has not been validated in individuals with cardiovascular disease (CVD), despite the increasing need for accessible assessment methods, particularly in contexts involving mobility limitations or reduced access to in-person care. Objective: We aimed to validate administration of the HAP questionnaire via telephone in patients with CVD who were participating in a cardiovascular rehabilitation program. Methods: This methodological study included 56 patients with CVD (36/56, 64% men; mean age 75.14, SD 10.28 years). Participants completed the HAP twice, once face-to-face and once by telephone, with a 3- to 14-day interval. Maximum activity score (MAS) and adjusted activity score (AAS) were analyzed. Internal consistency was assessed using Cronbach α, test-retest reliability was assessed using intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs), and agreement between modalities was assessed using Bland-Altman plots. Paired comparisons between modes were performed using mean differences (MDs) and P values. Results: MAS values did not differ significantly between face-to-face and telephone administration (mean 79.11, SD 11.48 vs mean 82.71, SD 7.48; MD -3.61; P=.10). AAS values showed a similar pattern (mean 69.11, SD 14.18 vs mean 71.21, SD 13.43; MD -2.11; P=.05). Internal consistency was excellent (Cronbach α=0.919), and reliability was high (ICC=0.794 for MAS; ICC=0.910 for AAS). Bland-Altman analyses demonstrated acceptable limits of agreement for MAS (-19.3 to 12.1) and AAS (-17.6 to 13.4), with no systematic bias. Conclusions: The HAP questionnaire administered by telephone demonstrates high reliability, excellent internal consistency, and strong agreement with face-to-face application. Telephone-based administration represents a valid, practical, and accessible alternative for assessing functional capacity in patients with cardiovascular disease, particularly when in-person evaluations are not feasible.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.012 | 0.028 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".