ArticleBMC public health2024
Measurement properties of the Regular Physical Exercise Adherence Scale (REPEAS) in individuals with chronic pain.
Article in BMC public health, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Validation of the regular physical exercise adherence scale (REPEAS) in Brazilian older adults.Aging clinical and experimental research · 2026Observational
- eArly phySical therApy Program for PatelloFemoral Pain (ASAP-PFP trial): protocol for a triple-blinded, superiority, parallel-group, multicentre trial.BMJ open sport & exercise medicine · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo examine the measurement properties of the Regular Physical Exercise Adherence Scale (REPEAS) in Brazilians with chronic pain.
methodsCross-sectional and longitudinal design (washout period for reliability). The study was conducted in two Brazilian states, Maranhão and São Paulo, and included Brazilian adults, irregular exercisers, former exercisers or non-exercise practitioners, aged 18 to 59 years and with chronic pain. The instruments used in this study were: the REPEAS, the Numerical Pain Rating Scale (NPRS), the Baecke Habitual Physical Activity Questionnaire (BHPAQ), the Pain Self-Efficacy Questionnaire (PSEQ), and the Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire for general pain (RMDQ-g). The evaluation focused on structural validity, construct validity, reliability (with standard error of measurement and minimum detectable change), internal consistency, and floor and ceiling effects.
resultsThe two-dimensional structure was tested through confirmatory factor analysis, which resulted in adequate fit indeces: chi-square values/degrees of freedom = 1.541, Tucker-Lewis Index = 0.966, comparative fit index = 0.974, root mean square error of approximation = 0.074, and standardized root mean square residual = 0.068. Additionally, satisfactory factor loadings (> 0.40) were obtained. Test-retest reliability and internal consistency were adequate for the environmental factors domain (intraclass correlation coefficient [ICC] = 0.79, Cronbach's alpha = 0.88) and the personal factors domain (ICC = 0.97, Cronbach's alpha = 0.93). In hypothesis testing for construct validity, we observed a significant correlation with magnitude below 0.30 of the environmental factors domain of the REPEAS with RMDQ-g, PSEQ and sport domain of the BHPAQ. For the personal factors domain, we observed a significant correlation with a magnitude of 0.30 to 0.50 with RMDQ-g, PSEQ, and sport domain of the BHPAQ, and below 0.30 with leisure domain of the BHPAQ. No floor or ceiling effects were found for the REPEAS domains.
conclusionThe REPEAS is a valid instrument with a two-dimensional internal structure consisting of 12 items. It has a reliable construct and is suitable for use in the clinical and epidemiological context for adults with chronic pain in Brazil.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.