4.5 Article

Effect of investigator observation on gait parameters in individuals with and without chronic low back pain

期刊

GAIT & POSTURE
卷 53, 期 -, 页码 35-40

出版社

ELSEVIER IRELAND LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.gaitpost.2017.01.002

关键词

Gait; Hawthorne effect; Walking velocity; Low back pain

资金

  1. University of Florida, Collee of Medicine Discovery Pathways Program

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Despite the ubiquity of gait assessment in clinic and research, it is unclear how observation impacts gait, particularly in persons with chronic pain and psychological stress. We compared temporal spatial gait patterns in people with and without chronic low back pain (CLBP) when they were aware and unaware of being observed. This was a repeated-measures, deception study in 55 healthy persons (32.0 +/- 12.4 yr, 24.2 +/- 2.7 kg/m(2)) and persons with CLBP (51.9 +/- 17.9 yr, 27.8 +/- 4.4 kg/m(2)). Participants performed one condition in which they were unaware of observation (UNW), and three conditions under investigator observation: (1) aware of observation (AWA), (2) investigators watching cadence, (3) investigators watching step length. Participants walked across an 8.4 m gait mat, while temporal spatial parameters of gait were collected. The Medical Outcomes Short Form (SF-12), Beck Depression Inventory (BDI), State Trait Anxiety Inventory (STAI), and Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) were completed. Significant condition by group interactions were found for velocity and step length (p < 0.05). Main effects of study condition existed for all gait variables except for step width. Main effects of group (healthy, LBP) were significant for all variables except for step width (p < 0.05). Regression analyses revealed that after accounting for age, sex, and SF-12 mental component score, BDI scores predict velocity changes during walking from the UNW to AWA conditions. These findings show that people change their gait patterns when being observed. Gait analyses may require additional trials before data can reliably be interpreted and used for clinical decision-making. (C) 2017 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据