4.6 Article

Accelerometer monitoring of home- and community-based ambulatory activity after stroke

期刊

出版社

W B SAUNDERS CO-ELSEVIER INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.apmr.2003.11.035

关键词

gait; hemiplegia; outcome assessment (health care); rehabilitation; walking

资金

  1. NIA NIH HHS [R29 AG14487] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objectives: To investigate the utility of a novel microprocessor-linked Step Watch Activity Monitor (SAM) to quantify ambulatory activity after stroke and to evaluate the validity and reliability of conventional accelerometers to measure free-living physical activity in this population. Design: Cross-sectional with repeated measures of 2 separate 48-hour recordings in 17 persons wearing an ankle-mounted SAM and Caltrac, a hip-mounted mechanical accelerometer. Setting: Home and community. Participants: Seventeen Subjects with chronic hemiparetic gait after stroke. Interventions: Not applicable. Main Outcome Measures: The SAM derived stride counts per day and Caltrac estimated the daily caloric expenditure of physical activity. Results: SAM data revealed that stroke patients had a mean strides per day +/- standard deviation of 3035+/-1944 and demonstrated a broad range of daily activity profiles (400-6472 strides). SAM test-retest reliability was high across separate monitoring periods (r=.96, P<.001). Although Caltrac also revealed a broad range of daily activity calories (346+/-217kcal/d; range, 83-1222kcal/d), reliability was poor (r=.044, P=not significant) and Caltrac accounted for only 64% of the ambulatory activity quantified by the SAM. Conclusions: Microprocessor-linked accelerometer monitoring, but not conventional accelerometers, are accurate and highly reliable for quantifying ambulatory activity levels in stroke patients. These findings support the utility of personal status monitoring of ambulatory activity as an outcomes instrument and metric in programs to increase physical activity and cardiovascular health after stroke.

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

4.6
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