Samuel D Schaffer1, Simon D Holzapfel2, George Fulk3, Pamela Rogers Bosch1. 1. a Department of Physical Therapy and Athletic Training, College of Health and Human Services , Northern Arizona University , Phoenix , AZ , USA. 2. b Department of Physical Activity, Nutrition & Wellness, School of Nutrition and Health Promotion , Arizona State University , Phoenix , AZ , USA. 3. c Department of Physical Therapy , Clarkson University , Potsdam , NY , USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND/ PURPOSE: The increasing popularity of activity tracking devices presents an opportunity to monitor physical activity in patients after stroke. We sought to determine the reliability and accuracy of the Garmin Vivofit and Fitbit Zip for adults after stroke. METHODS: Twenty-four participants with stroke-induced hemiparesis wore a Fitbit Zip on the nonparetic hip and Garmin Vivofits on both wrists during a 6-minute walk test to determine the accuracy of the devices against video-determined step counts. Participants also wore the devices during two trials of exactly 50 steps to determine the reliability of the devices. RESULTS: Fitbit Zip showed excellent reliability (ICC2,1 = 0.974) and accuracy (4.2% error) for participants who walked faster than 0.35 m/s. Garmin Vivofit (nonparetic side) had excellent reliability (ICC2,1 = 0.964) but poor accuracy (≤-16.0%) for all participants. Garmin Vivofit (paretic side) had excellent reliability (ICC2,1 = 0.858) and accuracy (-4.0% error) for faster walkers (>0.48 m/s) but poor accuracy (-68.2%) for slower walkers. CONCLUSION: Fitbit Zip was more accurate and reliable for persons with stroke than Garmin Vivofit, but slower walking speeds were associated with greater undercounting of steps for both devices. The Fitbit Zip is appropriate for counting steps in adults poststroke who range from household to community ambulators.
BACKGROUND/ PURPOSE: The increasing popularity of activity tracking devices presents an opportunity to monitor physical activity in patients after stroke. We sought to determine the reliability and accuracy of the Garmin Vivofit and Fitbit Zip for adults after stroke. METHODS: Twenty-four participants with stroke-induced hemiparesis wore a Fitbit Zip on the nonparetic hip and Garmin Vivofits on both wrists during a 6-minute walk test to determine the accuracy of the devices against video-determined step counts. Participants also wore the devices during two trials of exactly 50 steps to determine the reliability of the devices. RESULTS: Fitbit Zip showed excellent reliability (ICC2,1 = 0.974) and accuracy (4.2% error) for participants who walked faster than 0.35 m/s. Garmin Vivofit (nonparetic side) had excellent reliability (ICC2,1 = 0.964) but poor accuracy (≤-16.0%) for all participants. Garmin Vivofit (paretic side) had excellent reliability (ICC2,1 = 0.858) and accuracy (-4.0% error) for faster walkers (>0.48 m/s) but poor accuracy (-68.2%) for slower walkers. CONCLUSION: Fitbit Zip was more accurate and reliable for persons with stroke than Garmin Vivofit, but slower walking speeds were associated with greater undercounting of steps for both devices. The Fitbit Zip is appropriate for counting steps in adults poststroke who range from household to community ambulators.
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
Authors: André Henriksen; Martin Haugen Mikalsen; Ashenafi Zebene Woldaregay; Miroslav Muzny; Gunnar Hartvigsen; Laila Arnesdatter Hopstock; Sameline Grimsgaard Journal: J Med Internet Res Date: 2018-03-22 Impact factor: 5.428
Authors: Lynne M Feehan; Jasmina Geldman; Eric C Sayre; Chance Park; Allison M Ezzat; Ju Young Yoo; Clayon B Hamilton; Linda C Li Journal: JMIR Mhealth Uhealth Date: 2018-08-09 Impact factor: 4.773
Authors: Werner L Popp; Sophie Schneider; Jessica Bär; Philipp Bösch; Christina M Spengler; Roger Gassert; Armin Curt Journal: Front Neurol Date: 2019-11-01 Impact factor: 4.003
Authors: Reed Handlery; Elizabeth W Regan; Jill C Stewart; Christine Pellegrini; Courtney Monroe; Garrett Hainline; Kaci Handlery; Stacy L Fritz Journal: Stroke Date: 2021-03-11 Impact factor: 7.914
Authors: Carey L Holleran; Marghuretta D Bland; Darcy S Reisman; Terry D Ellis; Gammon M Earhart; Catherine E Lang Journal: J Neurol Phys Ther Date: 2020-10 Impact factor: 4.655
Authors: Francesco Negrini; Giulio Gasperini; Eleonora Guanziroli; Jacopo Antonino Vitale; Giuseppe Banfi; Franco Molteni Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2020-05-02 Impact factor: 3.390
Authors: Daniel Fuller; Emily Colwell; Jonathan Low; Kassia Orychock; Melissa Ann Tobin; Bo Simango; Richard Buote; Desiree Van Heerden; Hui Luan; Kimberley Cullen; Logan Slade; Nathan G A Taylor Journal: JMIR Mhealth Uhealth Date: 2020-09-08 Impact factor: 4.773