Literature DB >> 27666157

Step-Count Accuracy of 3 Motion Sensors for Older and Frail Medical Inpatients.

Ruth McCullagh1, Christina Dillon2, Ann Marie O'Connell3, N Frances Horgan4, Suzanne Timmons3.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To measure the step-count accuracy of an ankle-worn accelerometer, a thigh-worn accelerometer, and a pedometer in older and frail inpatients.
DESIGN: Cross-sectional design study.
SETTING: Research room within a hospital. PARTICIPANTS: Convenience sample of inpatients (N=32; age, ≥65 years) who were able to walk 20m independently with or without a walking aid.
INTERVENTIONS: Patients completed a 40-minute program of predetermined tasks while wearing the 3 motion sensors simultaneously. Video recording of the procedure provided the criterion measurement of step count. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Mean percentage errors were calculated for all tasks, for slow versus fast walkers, for independent walkers versus walking-aid users, and over shorter versus longer distances. The intraclass correlation was calculated, and accuracy was graphically displayed by Bland-Altman plots.
RESULTS: Thirty-two patients (mean age, 78.1±7.8y) completed the study. Fifteen (47%) were women, and 17 (51%) used walking aids. Their median speed was .46m/s (interquartile range [IQR], .36-.66m/s). The ankle-worn accelerometer overestimated steps (median error, 1% [IQR, -3% to 13%]). The other motion sensors underestimated steps (median error, 40% [IQR, -51% to -35%] and 38% [IQR -93% to -27%], respectively). The ankle-worn accelerometer proved to be more accurate over longer distances (median error, 3% [IQR, 0%-9%]) than over shorter distances (median error, 10% [IQR, -23% to 9%]).
CONCLUSIONS: The ankle-worn accelerometer gave the most accurate step-count measurement and was most accurate over longer distances. Neither of the other motion sensors had acceptable margins of error.
Copyright © 2016 American Congress of Rehabilitation Medicine. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Dimensional measurement accuracy; Frail elderly; Inpatients; Rehabilitation; Walking

Mesh:

Year:  2016        PMID: 27666157     DOI: 10.1016/j.apmr.2016.08.476

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Arch Phys Med Rehabil        ISSN: 0003-9993            Impact factor:   3.966


  5 in total

1.  Effect of body weight support on predicted locomotive physical activity.

Authors:  Yoshiya Fujika; Hironobu Hamada; Kiyokazu Sekikawa; Teruki Kajiwara; Hikaru Yamamoto; Norimichi Kamikawa
Journal:  J Phys Ther Sci       Date:  2018-06-12

2.  Accuracy of consumer-level and research-grade activity trackers in ambulatory settings in older adults.

Authors:  Salvatore Tedesco; Marco Sica; Andrea Ancillao; Suzanne Timmons; John Barton; Brendan O'Flynn
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2019-05-21       Impact factor: 3.240

3.  Step and Distance Measurement From a Low-Cost Consumer-Based Hip and Wrist Activity Monitor: Protocol for a Validity and Reliability Assessment.

Authors:  Thomas Carlin; Nicolas Vuillerme
Journal:  JMIR Res Protoc       Date:  2021-01-13

4.  Factors Associated With Walking in Older Medical Inpatients.

Authors:  Ruth McCullagh; Dahly Darren; N Frances Horgan; Suzanne Timmons
Journal:  Arch Rehabil Res Clin Transl       Date:  2020-01-11

5.  Pacemaker detected active minutes are superior to pedometer-based step counts in measuring the response to physical activity counseling in sedentary older adults.

Authors:  Venkata K Puppala; Benjamin C Hofeld; Amberly Anger; Sudhi Tyagi; Scott J Strath; Judith Fox; Marcie G Berger; Kwang Woo Ahn; Michael E Widlansky
Journal:  BMC Geriatr       Date:  2020-05-06       Impact factor: 3.921

  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.