Suggested steps:

– read the article at least two times

– highlight the important points of the article in every section

– read the critique question in the template and write the answer to each question. The answer should be in a sentence format with supporting evidence from the article to justify the response to the question.

– Write all the response to the critique questions with the evidence in an APA formatted document.

– Use a maximum of 3-4 references

6-7 pages

Original Research

Association between Physical Activity and Health-Related Quality of
Life in Adults with Type 2 Diabetes

Danielle M. Thiel BSc a, Fatima Al Sayah PhD a, Jeff K. Vallance PhD b, Steven T. Johnson PhD b,
Jeffrey A. Johnson PhD a,*
a Alliance for Canadian Health Outcomes Research in Diabetes, School of Public Health, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada
b Centre for Nursing and Health Studies, Faculty of Health Disciplines, Athabasca University, Athabasca, Alberta, Canada

a r t i c l e i n f o

Article history:
Received 14 April 2016
Received in revised form
18 July 2016
Accepted 18 July 2016

health-related quality of life
mental health
physical activity
physical health
type 2 diabetes

a b s t r a c t

Objectives: To examine the association between meeting physical-activity recommendations and health-
related quality of life (HRQL) in adults with type 2 diabetes.
Methods: Data from the Alberta’s Caring for Diabetes cohort were used. Self-report questionnaires were
mailed to patients with type 2 diabetes who were living in Alberta, Canada. Weekly moderate-vigorous
physical activity (MVPA) was reported using the Godin Leisure Time Physical Activity Questionnaire, and
HRQL was reported using the Medical Outcomes Study (MOS) 12-Item Short-Form Health Survey v. 2 (SF-12
v. 2) and the 5-level EuroQol 5-Dimensions (EQ-5D). Based on current guidelines for patients with type 2
diabetes in Canada, participants were grouped according to whether they accrued 150 minutes of MVPA
per week. Multivariable linear regression models were used to explore associations between physical activ-
ity and HRQL.
Results: The mean age of participants (N=1948) was 64.5±10.8, and 45% were female. Participants reported
a mean of 84.1±172.4 minutes of MVPA per week, and 21% (n=416) met recommendations for physical
activity. Those who met physical activity recommendations reported higher scores on physical function-
ing (b=9.58; p<0.001); role-physical (b=8.87; p=0.001); bodily pain (b=5.12; p=0.001); general health (b=6.66;
p<0.001); vitality (b=9.05; p<0.001); social functioning (b=3.32; p=0.040); and role-emotional (b=3.08;
p=0.010); physical component summary (b=3.31; p<0.001); mental component summary (b=1.43; p=0.001)
and EQ-5D-5L index score (b=0.022; p=0.005) compared to those not meeting recommendations.
Conclusions: The majority of the sample did not meet the guidelines for physical activity. Among those
who did, a significant positive association was observed with HRQL, particularly physical health.

© 2016 Canadian Diabetes Association.

Mots clés :
qualité de vie liée à la santé
sante mentale
activité physique
sante physique
diabète de type 2

r é s u m é

Objectifs : Examiner l’association entre le respect des recommandations en matière d’activité physique
et la qualité de vie liée à la santé (QV


Aspect of the Report

Critiquing Questions


Is the title a good one, succinctly suggesting key variables and the study population?


Does the abstract clearly and concisely summarize the main features of the report (problem, methods, results, conclusions)?

· Is the problem stated unambiguously, and is it easy to identify?

· Does the problem statement build a cogent, persuasive argument for the new study?

· Does the problem have significance for nursing? Is there a good match between the research problem and the paradigm and methods used?

· Is a quantitative approach appropriate?

Hypothesis or research questions

· Are research questions and/or hypotheses explicitly stated? If not, is their absence justified?

· Are questions and hypotheses appropriately worded, with clear specification of key variables and the study population?

· Are the questions/hypotheses consistent with the literature review and the conceptual framework?

Literature review

· Is the literature review up to date and based mainly on primary sources?

· Does the review provide a state-of-the-art synthesis of evidence on the problem?

· Does the literature review provide a sound basis for the new study?

Conceptual/theoretical framework

· Are key concepts adequately defined conceptually?

· Is there a conceptual/theoretical framework, rationale, and/or map, and (if so) is it appropriate? If not, is the absence of one justified?


Protection of human rights

· Were appropriate procedures used to safeguard the rights of study participants?

· Was the study externally reviewed by an IRB/ethics review board?

· Was the study designed to minimize risks and maximize benefits to participants?

Research design

· Was the most rigorous possible design used, given the study purpose?

· Were appropriate comparisons made to enhance interpretability of the findings?

· Was the number of data collection points appropriate?

· Did the design minimize biases and threats to the internal, construct, and external validity of the study (e.g., was blinding used, was attrition minimized)?