To test if pedometers, as a motivational tool, could affect mobility outcomes in inpatient rehabilitation.
Design:
Randomized controlled clinical trial.
Setting:
Subacute hospital rehabilitation unit in Australia.
Participants:
A total of 78 participants with reduced mobility and clinician-determined capacity to improve.
Interventions:
Both groups received usual care. For the intervention group, a pedometer was worn on the hip with the step count visible to participant and recorded daily on an exercise log. For the control group, a pedometer fixed shut was worn on the hip and they recorded estimated distances walked on an exercise log.
Main measures:
Primary outcome was functional mobility – De Morton Mobility Index. Secondary outcome measures were walking velocity, functional independence measure, time spent upright and daily step count.
Results:
Significant improvements over time (P < 0.001) in functional mobility, comfortable walking velocity and functional independence measure were not influenced by the intervention. The daily average upright time (hours) in the first week of intervention was different (P = 0.004) between the intervention group (median, interquartile range (IQR): 1.67, 1.77) compared to the control group (median, IQR: 1.12, 0.82).
Conclusion:
Pedometers as a motivational tool without targets do not improve functional mobility in this population. Pedometers may improve daily upright time in this setting.
SmithPGaleaMWoodwardM, et al. Physical activity by elderly patients undergoing inpatient rehabilitation is low: an observational study. Aust J Physiother2008; 54(3): 209–213.
2.
EnglishCBernhardtJHillierS.Circuit class therapy and 7-day-week therapy increase physiotherapy time, but not patient activity: early results from the CIRCIT trial. Stroke2014; 45: 3002–3007.
3.
WestTBernhardtJ.Physical activity in hospitalised stroke patients. Stroke Research and Treatment2011; 2012: 813765.
4.
PeirisCLTaylorNFShieldsN.Patients receiving inpatient rehabilitation for lower limb orthopaedic conditions do much less physical activity than recommended in guidelines for healthy older adults: an observational study. J Physiother2013; 59(1): 39–44.
5.
HornbyTGStraubeDSKinnairdCR, et al. Importance of specificity, amount, and intensity of locomotor training to improve ambulatory function in patients poststroke. Top Stroke Rehabil2011; 18(4): 293–307.
6.
FrenchBThomasLHCoupeJ, et al. Repetitive task training for improving functional ability after stroke. Cochrane Database Syst Rev2016; 11: CD006073.
7.
EnglishCBernhardtJCrottyM, et al. Circuit class therapy or seven-day week therapy for increasing rehabilitation intensity of therapy after stroke (CIRCIT): a randomized controlled trial. Int J Stroke2015; 10(4): 594–602.
8.
ParkerCHillKCobdenJ, et al. Randomized Controlled Trial of the Effect of Additional Functional Exercise During Slow-Stream Rehabilitation in a Regional Center. Arch Phys Med Rehabil2015; 96(5): 831–836.
9.
PeirisCLShieldsNBruscoNK, et al. Additional Saturday rehabilitation improves functional independence and quality of life and reduces length of stay: a randomized controlled trial. BMC Med2013; 11: 198.
10.
TysonSBurtonLMcGovernA.The effect of a structured programme to increase patient activity during inpatient stroke rehabilitation: a Phase I cohort study. Clin Rehabil2016; 30(2): 191–198.
11.
ScrivenerKJonesTSchurrK, et al. After-hours or weekend rehabilitation improves outcomes and increases physical activity but does not affect length of stay: a systematic review. J Physiother2015; 61: 61–67.
12.
BravataDMSmith-SpanglerCSundaramV, et al. Using pedometers to increase physical activity and improve health: a systematic review. JAMA2007; 298(19): 2296–2304.
13.
CarrollSLGreigCALewisSJ, et al. The use of pedometers in stroke survivors: are they feasible and how well do they detect steps. Arch Phys Med Rehabil2012; 93(3): 466–470.
14.
KellerSBurnsMZielkeD, et al. The relationship between pedometer feedback and gait speed improvements in acute stroke rehabilitation-preliminary results. Arch Phys Med Rehab2016; 97: e112.
15.
PeelNMPaulSKCameronID, et al. Promoting activity in geriatric rehabilitation: a randomized controlled trial of accelerometry. PLoS ONE2016; 11(8): e0160906.
16.
HassettLVan Den BergMLindleyRI, et al. Effect of affordable technology on physical activity levels and mobility outcomes in rehabilitation: a protocol for the Activity and MObility UsiNg Technology (AMOUNT) rehabilitation trial. BMJ Open2016; 6(6): e012074.
17.
LynchEJonesTSimpsonD, et al. Activity monitors for increasing physical activity in adult stroke survivors. Cochrane Database Syst Rev2018; 7: CD012543.
18.
VanroyCVissersDCrasP, et al. Physical activity monitoring in stroke: SenseWear Pro2 activity accelerometer versus Yamax Digi-Walker SW-200 pedometer. Disabil Rehabil2014; 36(20): 1695–1703.
19.
TreacyDHassettLSchurrK, et al. Validity of different activity monitors to count steps in an inpatient rehabilitation setting. Phys Ther2017; 97(5): 581–588.
20.
de MortonNALaneK. Validity and reliability of the de Morton Mobility Index in the subacute hospital setting in a geriatric evaluation and management population. J Rehabil Med2010; 42(10): 956–961.
21.
GrantPMDallPMMitchellSL, et al. Activity-monitor accuracy in measuring step number and cadence in community-dwelling older adults. J Aging Phys Act2008; 16(2): 201–214.
22.
ElsworthCDawesHWinwardC, et al. Pedometer step counts in individuals with neurological conditions. Clin Rehabil2009; 23(2): 171–175.
23.
DorschAKThomasSXuX, et al. SIRRACT: an international randomized clinical trial of activity feedback during inpatient stroke rehabilitation enabled by wireless sensing. Neurorehabil Neural Repair2015; 29(5): 407–415.
24.
StrathSJSwartzAMParkerSJ, et al. A pilot randomized controlled trial evaluating motivationally matched pedometer feedback to increase physical activity behavior in older adults. J Phys Activity Health2011; 8: S267–S274.
25.
SnyderAColvinBGammackJK.Pedometer use increases daily steps and functional status in older adults. J Am Med Dir Assoc2011; 12(8): 590–594.
26.
SullivanJEEspeLEKellyAM, et al. Feasibility and outcomes of a community-based, pedometer-monitored walking program in chronic stroke: a pilot study. Top Stroke Rehabil2014; 21(2): 101–110.
27.
SinghAKFarmerCVan Den BergML, et al. Accuracy of the FitBit at walking speeds and cadences relevant to clinical rehabilitation populations. Disabil Health J2016; 9(2): 320–323.
28.
MutrieNDoolinOFitzsimonsCF, et al. Increasing older adults’ walking through primary care: results of a pilot randomized controlled trial. Fam Pract2012; 29(6): 633–642.
29.
KanounN.Validation of the ActivPAL activity monitor as a measure of walking at pre-determined slow walking speeds in a healthy population in a controlled setting. Reinvention2009; 2: 5–9.
30.
BowdenMGBalasubramanianCKBehrmanAL, et al. Validation of a speed-based classification system using quantitative measures of walking performance poststroke. Neurorehabil Neural Repair2008; 22(6): 672–675.
31.
BennettSFeltonAAkçelikR.Pedestrian movement characteristics at signalised intersections. In: Proceedings of the 23rd conference of Australian institute of transport research, Clayton, VIC, Australia, 10–12 December 2001.
32.
OnelcinPAlverY.The crossing speed and safety margin of pedestrians at signalized intersections. Transp Res Procedia2017; 22: 3–12.
33.
MansfieldAWongJSBryceJ, et al. Use of accelerometer-based feedback of walking activity for appraising progress with walking-related goals in inpatient stroke rehabilitation: a randomized controlled trial. Neurorehabil Neural Repair2015; 29(9): 847–857.
