Purpose: We determined the correlation between the Fitbit One and Actical accelerometer for quantifying the 3-day step count and activity levels in community-dwelling individuals with stroke. Method: Twelve participants with a mean age of 62.6 (SD 9.3) years wore both the Fitbit One and the Actical on the non-paretic ankle for 3 days. Regression analyses were performed to examine concurrent validity between the devices for step counts and sedentary, light, moderate, and vigorous activity. The relative error of the Fitbit One compared with the Actical in measuring step count was calculated. Results: Participants spent about 80% of their days being sedentary. The associations between the Fitbit One and the Actical were r>0.80 for step count and light-intensity activity across the 3 days of free-living activity. The overall relative error in measuring step count was 3.8%, with differences between those with walking speeds of less than 0.58 metres per second and 0.58 metres per second or more (27.4% [SD 34.2] vs. -8.0% [SD 10.7], p<0.001). Conclusions: The Fitbit One was associated with the Actical accelerometer in measuring step count and light-intensity activity during free-living activity after stroke, but had lower error in capturing step count for those with faster walking speeds. The Fitbit One may not be valid for capturing higher intensity activity after stroke.
Purpose: We determined the correlation between the Fitbit One and Actical accelerometer for quantifying the 3-day step count and activity levels in community-dwelling individuals with stroke. Method: Twelve participants with a mean age of 62.6 (SD 9.3) years wore both the Fitbit One and the Actical on the non-paretic ankle for 3 days. Regression analyses were performed to examine concurrent validity between the devices for step counts and sedentary, light, moderate, and vigorous activity. The relative error of the Fitbit One compared with the Actical in measuring step count was calculated. Results:Participants spent about 80% of their days being sedentary. The associations between the Fitbit One and the Actical were r>0.80 for step count and light-intensity activity across the 3 days of free-living activity. The overall relative error in measuring step count was 3.8%, with differences between those with walking speeds of less than 0.58 metres per second and 0.58 metres per second or more (27.4% [SD 34.2] vs. -8.0% [SD 10.7], p<0.001). Conclusions: The Fitbit One was associated with the Actical accelerometer in measuring step count and light-intensity activity during free-living activity after stroke, but had lower error in capturing step count for those with faster walking speeds. The Fitbit One may not be valid for capturing higher intensity activity after stroke.
Authors: Sanjay K Prajapati; William H Gage; Dina Brooks; Sandra E Black; William E McIlroy Journal: Neurorehabil Neural Repair Date: 2010-09-09 Impact factor: 3.919
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: Lisa A Simpson; Janice J Eng; Tara D Klassen; Shannon B Lim; Dennis R Louie; Beena Parappilly; Brodie M Sakakibara; Dominik Zbogar Journal: J Rehabil Med Date: 2015-10-05 Impact factor: 2.912
Authors: C Gowland; P Stratford; M Ward; J Moreland; W Torresin; S Van Hullenaar; J Sanford; S Barreca; B Vanspall; N Plews Journal: Stroke Date: 1993-01 Impact factor: 7.914
Authors: Tari D Topolski; James LoGerfo; Donald L Patrick; Barbara Williams; Julie Walwick; Marsha B Patrick Journal: Prev Chronic Dis Date: 2006-09-15 Impact factor: 2.830
Authors: Callum Betteridge; Ralph J Mobbs; R Dineth Fonseka; Pragadesh Natarajan; Daniel Ho; Wen Jie Choy; Luke W Sy; Nina Pell Journal: J Spine Surg Date: 2021-09
Authors: Pierce Boyne; Victoria Scholl; Sarah Doren; Daniel Carl; Sandra A Billinger; Darcy S Reisman; Myron Gerson; Brett Kissela; Jennifer Vannest; Kari Dunning Journal: Top Stroke Rehabil Date: 2020-02-16 Impact factor: 2.119
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: 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: Emma Haldane Beisheim; Elisa Sarah Arch; John Robert Horne; Jaclyn Megan Sions Journal: Prosthet Orthot Int Date: 2020-06-16 Impact factor: 1.895
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