Discovery - University of Dundee - Online Publications

Library & Learning Centre

The Use of Pedometers in Stroke Survivors

Standard

The Use of Pedometers in Stroke Survivors : Are They Feasible and How Well Do They Defect Steps?. / Carroll, Sarah L.; Greig, Carolyn A.; Lewis, Susan J.; McMurdo, Marion E.; Sniehotta, Falko F.; Johnston, Marie; Johnston, Derek W.; Scopes, Judy; Mead, Gillian E.

In: Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, Vol. 93, No. 3, 03.2012, p. 466-470.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Harvard

Carroll, SL, Greig, CA, Lewis, SJ, McMurdo, ME, Sniehotta, FF, Johnston, M, Johnston, DW, Scopes, J & Mead, GE 2012, 'The Use of Pedometers in Stroke Survivors: Are They Feasible and How Well Do They Defect Steps?' Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, vol 93, no. 3, pp. 466-470., 10.1016/j.apmr.2011.08.047

APA

Carroll, S. L., Greig, C. A., Lewis, S. J., McMurdo, M. E., Sniehotta, F. F., Johnston, M., ... Mead, G. E. (2012). The Use of Pedometers in Stroke Survivors: Are They Feasible and How Well Do They Defect Steps?. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, 93(3), 466-470. 10.1016/j.apmr.2011.08.047

Vancouver

Carroll SL, Greig CA, Lewis SJ, McMurdo ME, Sniehotta FF, Johnston M et al. The Use of Pedometers in Stroke Survivors: Are They Feasible and How Well Do They Defect Steps?. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation. 2012 Mar;93(3):466-470. Available from: 10.1016/j.apmr.2011.08.047

Author

Carroll, Sarah L.; Greig, Carolyn A.; Lewis, Susan J.; McMurdo, Marion E.; Sniehotta, Falko F.; Johnston, Marie; Johnston, Derek W.; Scopes, Judy; Mead, Gillian E. / The Use of Pedometers in Stroke Survivors : Are They Feasible and How Well Do They Defect Steps?.

In: Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, Vol. 93, No. 3, 03.2012, p. 466-470.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Bibtex - Download

@article{326567136d9e4da4be30430dca4471cb,
title = "The Use of Pedometers in Stroke Survivors: Are They Feasible and How Well Do They Defect Steps?",
author = "Carroll, {Sarah L.} and Greig, {Carolyn A.} and Lewis, {Susan J.} and McMurdo, {Marion E.} and Sniehotta, {Falko F.} and Marie Johnston and Johnston, {Derek W.} and Judy Scopes and Mead, {Gillian E.}",
year = "2012",
doi = "10.1016/j.apmr.2011.08.047",
volume = "93",
number = "3",
pages = "466--470",
journal = "Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation",
issn = "0003-9993",

}

RIS (suitable for import to EndNote) - Download

TY - JOUR

T1 - The Use of Pedometers in Stroke Survivors

T2 - Are They Feasible and How Well Do They Defect Steps?

A1 - Carroll,Sarah L.

A1 - Greig,Carolyn A.

A1 - Lewis,Susan J.

A1 - McMurdo,Marion E.

A1 - Sniehotta,Falko F.

A1 - Johnston,Marie

A1 - Johnston,Derek W.

A1 - Scopes,Judy

A1 - Mead,Gillian E.

AU - Carroll,Sarah L.

AU - Greig,Carolyn A.

AU - Lewis,Susan J.

AU - McMurdo,Marion E.

AU - Sniehotta,Falko F.

AU - Johnston,Marie

AU - Johnston,Derek W.

AU - Scopes,Judy

AU - Mead,Gillian E.

PY - 2012/3

Y1 - 2012/3

N2 - <p>Carroll SL, Greig CA, Lewis SJ, McMurdo ME, Sniehotta FF, Johnston M, Johnston DW, Scopes J. Mead GE. The use of pedometers in stroke survivors: are they feasible and how well do they detect steps? Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2012;93:466-70.</p><p>Objectives: To determine (1) the feasibility of pedometers for stroke patients and (2) the level of agreement between pedometers and actual step count.</p><p>Design: Observational agreement study.</p><p>Setting: Six stroke units.</p><p>Participants: Independently mobile stroke patients (N=50) ready for hospital discharge.</p><p>Interventions: Patients were asked to apply 3 pedometers: 1 around the neck and 1 above each hip. Patients performed a short walk lasting 20 seconds, then a 6-minute walk test (6MWT). Video recordings determined the criterion standard step count.</p><p>Main Outcome Measure: Agreement between the step count recorded by pedometers and the step count recorded by viewing the criterion standard video recordings of the 2 walks.</p><p>Results: Five patients (10%) needed assistance to put on the pedometers, and 5 (10%) could not read the step count. Thirtynine (78%) would use pedometers again. Below a gait speed of about 0.5m/s, pedometers did not generally detect steps. Agreement analyses showed that even above 0.5m/s, pedometers undercounted steps for both the short walk and 6MWT; for example, the mean difference between the video recorder and pedometer around the neck was 5.93 steps during the short walk and 32.4 steps during the 6MWT.</p><p>Conclusions: Pedometers are feasible but generally do not detect steps at gait speeds below about 0.5m/s, and they undercount steps at gait speeds above 0.5m/s.</p>

AB - <p>Carroll SL, Greig CA, Lewis SJ, McMurdo ME, Sniehotta FF, Johnston M, Johnston DW, Scopes J. Mead GE. The use of pedometers in stroke survivors: are they feasible and how well do they detect steps? Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2012;93:466-70.</p><p>Objectives: To determine (1) the feasibility of pedometers for stroke patients and (2) the level of agreement between pedometers and actual step count.</p><p>Design: Observational agreement study.</p><p>Setting: Six stroke units.</p><p>Participants: Independently mobile stroke patients (N=50) ready for hospital discharge.</p><p>Interventions: Patients were asked to apply 3 pedometers: 1 around the neck and 1 above each hip. Patients performed a short walk lasting 20 seconds, then a 6-minute walk test (6MWT). Video recordings determined the criterion standard step count.</p><p>Main Outcome Measure: Agreement between the step count recorded by pedometers and the step count recorded by viewing the criterion standard video recordings of the 2 walks.</p><p>Results: Five patients (10%) needed assistance to put on the pedometers, and 5 (10%) could not read the step count. Thirtynine (78%) would use pedometers again. Below a gait speed of about 0.5m/s, pedometers did not generally detect steps. Agreement analyses showed that even above 0.5m/s, pedometers undercounted steps for both the short walk and 6MWT; for example, the mean difference between the video recorder and pedometer around the neck was 5.93 steps during the short walk and 32.4 steps during the 6MWT.</p><p>Conclusions: Pedometers are feasible but generally do not detect steps at gait speeds below about 0.5m/s, and they undercount steps at gait speeds above 0.5m/s.</p>

U2 - 10.1016/j.apmr.2011.08.047

DO - 10.1016/j.apmr.2011.08.047

M1 - Article

JO - Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation

JF - Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation

SN - 0003-9993

IS - 3

VL - 93

SP - 466

EP - 470

ER -

Documents

Library & Learning Centre

Contact | Accessibility | Policy