OBJECTIVE: To investigate the validity and test-retest reliability of mHealth devices (Google Fit, Health, STEPZ, Pacer, and Fitbit Ultra) to estimate the number of steps in individuals after chronic stroke and to compare whether the measurement of the number of steps is affected by their location on the body (paretic and non-paretic side). DESIGN: Observational study with repeated measures. SETTING: University laboratory. SUBJECTS: Fifty-five community-dwelling individuals with chronic stroke. INTERVENTION: Not applicable. MAIN MEASURES: The number of steps was measured using mHealth devices (Google Fit, Health, STEPZ, Pacer, and Fitbit Ultra), and compared against criterion-standard measure during the Two-Minute Walk Test using habitual speed. RESULTS: Our sample was 54.5% men, mean age of 62.5 years (SD 14.9) with a chronicity after stroke of 66.8 months (SD 55.9). There was a statistically significant association between the actual number of steps and those estimated by the Google Fit, STEPZ Iphone and Android applications, Pacer iphone and Android, and Fitbit Ultra (0.30 ⩽ r ⩾ 0.80). The Pacer iphone application demonstrated the highest reliability coefficient (ICC(2,1) = 0.80; P < 0.001). There were no statistically significant differences in device measurements that depended on body location. CONCLUSIONS: mHealth devices (Pacer-iphone, Fitbit Ultra, Google Fit, and Pacer-Android) are valid and reliable for step counting in chronic stroke survivors. Body location (paretic or non-paretic side) does not affect validity or reliability of the step count metric.
OBJECTIVE: To investigate the validity and test-retest reliability of mHealth devices (Google Fit, Health, STEPZ, Pacer, and Fitbit Ultra) to estimate the number of steps in individuals after chronic stroke and to compare whether the measurement of the number of steps is affected by their location on the body (paretic and non-paretic side). DESIGN: Observational study with repeated measures. SETTING: University laboratory. SUBJECTS: Fifty-five community-dwelling individuals with chronic stroke. INTERVENTION: Not applicable. MAIN MEASURES: The number of steps was measured using mHealth devices (Google Fit, Health, STEPZ, Pacer, and Fitbit Ultra), and compared against criterion-standard measure during the Two-Minute Walk Test using habitual speed. RESULTS: Our sample was 54.5% men, mean age of 62.5 years (SD 14.9) with a chronicity after stroke of 66.8 months (SD 55.9). There was a statistically significant association between the actual number of steps and those estimated by the Google Fit, STEPZ Iphone and Android applications, Pacer iphone and Android, and Fitbit Ultra (0.30 ⩽ r ⩾ 0.80). The Pacer iphone application demonstrated the highest reliability coefficient (ICC(2,1) = 0.80; P < 0.001). There were no statistically significant differences in device measurements that depended on body location. CONCLUSIONS: mHealth devices (Pacer-iphone, Fitbit Ultra, Google Fit, and Pacer-Android) are valid and reliable for step counting in chronic stroke survivors. Body location (paretic or non-paretic side) does not affect validity or reliability of the step count metric.
Entities:
Keywords:
Stroke; community walkers; gait; steps; validity
Authors: Sangeetha Madhavan; Anjali Sivaramakrishnan; Mark G Bowden; Neale R Chumbler; Edelle C Field-Fote; Trisha M Kesar Journal: Top Stroke Rehabil Date: 2021-02-18 Impact factor: 2.119