Tara D Klassen1, Lisa A Simpson2, Shannon B Lim3, Dennis R Louie4, Beena Parappilly5, Brodie M Sakakibara6, Dominik Zbogar7, Janice J Eng8. 1. T.D. Klassen, PT, MSc, Department of Physical Therapy and Graduate Program in Rehabilitation Sciences, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada, and Rehabilitation Research Program, GF Strong Rehabilitation Centre, Vancouver, Canada. 2. L.A. Simpson, OT, MSc, Rehabilitation Research Program, GF Strong Rehabilitation Centre, and Graduate Program in Rehabilitation Sciences, University of British Columbia. 3. S.B. Lim, MSc, Rehabilitation Research Program, GF Strong Rehabilitation Centre, and Graduate Program in Rehabilitation Sciences, University of British Columbia. 4. D.R. Louie, MPT, Rehabilitation Research Program, GF Strong Rehabilitation Centre. 5. B. Parappilly, RN, MSc, Rehabilitation Research Program, GF Strong Rehabilitation Centre, and Graduate Program in Rehabilitation Sciences, University of British Columbia. 6. B.M. Sakakibara, PhD, Department of Physical Therapy, University of British Columbia, and Rehabilitation Research Program, GF Strong Rehabilitation Centre. 7. D. Zbogar, MSc, Rehabilitation Research Program, GF Strong Rehabilitation Centre, and Graduate Program in Rehabilitation Sciences, University of British Columbia. 8. J.J. Eng, PT, PhD, Department of Physical Therapy, University of British Columbia, 212-2177 Wesbrook Mall, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada V6T 1Z3. janice.eng@ubc.ca.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: As physical activity in people poststroke is low, devices that monitor and provide feedback of walking activity provide motivation to engage in exercise and may assist rehabilitation professionals in auditing walking activity. However, most feedback devices are not accurate at slow walking speeds. OBJECTIVE: This study assessed the accuracy of one accelerometer to measure walking steps of community-dwelling individuals poststroke. DESIGN: This was a cross-sectional study. METHODS: Two accelerometers were positioned on the nonparetic waist and ankle of participants (N=43), and walking steps from these devices were recorded at 7 speeds (0.3-0.9 m/s) and compared with video recordings (gold standard). RESULTS: When positioned at the waist, the accelerometer had more than 10% error at all speeds, except 0.8 and 0.9 m/s, and numerous participants recorded zero steps at 0.3 to 0.5 m/s. The device had 10% or less error when positioned at the ankle for all speeds between 0.4 and 0.9 m/s. LIMITATIONS: Some participants were unable to complete the faster walking speeds due to their walking impairments and inability to maintain the requested walking speed. CONCLUSIONS: Although not recommended by the manufacturer, positioning the accelerometer at the ankle (compared with the waist) may fill a long-standing need for a readily available device that provides accurate feedback for the altered and slow walking patterns that occur with stroke.
BACKGROUND: As physical activity in people poststroke is low, devices that monitor and provide feedback of walking activity provide motivation to engage in exercise and may assist rehabilitation professionals in auditing walking activity. However, most feedback devices are not accurate at slow walking speeds. OBJECTIVE: This study assessed the accuracy of one accelerometer to measure walking steps of community-dwelling individuals poststroke. DESIGN: This was a cross-sectional study. METHODS: Two accelerometers were positioned on the nonparetic waist and ankle of participants (N=43), and walking steps from these devices were recorded at 7 speeds (0.3-0.9 m/s) and compared with video recordings (gold standard). RESULTS: When positioned at the waist, the accelerometer had more than 10% error at all speeds, except 0.8 and 0.9 m/s, and numerous participants recorded zero steps at 0.3 to 0.5 m/s. The device had 10% or less error when positioned at the ankle for all speeds between 0.4 and 0.9 m/s. LIMITATIONS: Some participants were unable to complete the faster walking speeds due to their walking impairments and inability to maintain the requested walking speed. CONCLUSIONS: Although not recommended by the manufacturer, positioning the accelerometer at the ankle (compared with the waist) may fill a long-standing need for a readily available device that provides accurate feedback for the altered and slow walking patterns that occur with stroke.
Authors: Judit Takacs; Courtney L Pollock; Jerrad R Guenther; Mohammadreza Bahar; Christopher Napier; Michael A Hunt Journal: J Sci Med Sport Date: 2013-10-31 Impact factor: 4.319
Authors: Jane E Sullivan; Lauren E Espe; Amanda M Kelly; Laura E Veilbig; Mary J Kwasny Journal: Top Stroke Rehabil Date: 2014 Mar-Apr Impact factor: 2.119
Authors: Elaina Haeuber; Marianne Shaughnessy; Larry W Forrester; Kim L Coleman; Richard F Macko Journal: Arch Phys Med Rehabil Date: 2004-12 Impact factor: 3.966
Authors: Charlotte Elsworth; Helen Dawes; Charlotte Winward; Ken Howells; Johnny Collett; Andrea Dennis; Catherine Sackley; Derick Wade Journal: Clin Rehabil Date: 2009-02 Impact factor: 3.477
Authors: Sarah L Carroll; Carolyn A Greig; Susan J Lewis; Marion E McMurdo; Falko F Sniehotta; Marie Johnston; Derek W Johnston; Judy Scopes; Gillian E Mead Journal: Arch Phys Med Rehabil Date: 2012-03 Impact factor: 3.966
Authors: Stephen P Wright; Tyish S Hall Brown; Scott R Collier; Kathryn Sandberg Journal: Am J Physiol Regul Integr Comp Physiol Date: 2017-01-04 Impact factor: 3.619
Authors: Jonathan Hui; Richard Heyden; Tim Bao; Nicholas Accettone; Catherine McBay; Julie Richardson; Ada Tang Journal: Physiother Can Date: 2018 Impact factor: 1.037
Authors: Allison Miller; Tamara Wright; Henry Wright; Elizabeth Thompson; Ryan T Pohlig; Darcy S Reisman Journal: J Neurol Phys Ther Date: 2021-01 Impact factor: 4.655