The Use of Pedometers in Stroke Survivors: Are They Feasible and How Well Do They Defect Steps?

Sarah L. Carroll, Carolyn A. Greig, Susan J. Lewis, Marion E. McMurdo, Falko F. Sniehotta, Marie Johnston, Derek W. Johnston, Judy Scopes, Gillian E. Mead

    Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

    38 Citations (Scopus)

    Abstract

    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.

    Objectives: To determine (1) the feasibility of pedometers for stroke patients and (2) the level of agreement between pedometers and actual step count.

    Design: Observational agreement study.

    Setting: Six stroke units.

    Participants: Independently mobile stroke patients (N=50) ready for hospital discharge.

    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.

    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.

    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.

    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.

    Original languageEnglish
    Pages (from-to)466-470
    Number of pages5
    JournalArchives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation
    Volume93
    Issue number3
    DOIs
    Publication statusPublished - Mar 2012

    Cite this

    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. 2012 ; Vol. 93, No. 3. pp. 466-470.
    @article{326567136d9e4da4be30430dca4471cb,
    title = "The Use of Pedometers in Stroke Survivors: Are They Feasible and How Well Do They Defect Steps?",
    abstract = "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.Objectives: To determine (1) the feasibility of pedometers for stroke patients and (2) the level of agreement between pedometers and actual step count.Design: Observational agreement study.Setting: Six stroke units.Participants: Independently mobile stroke patients (N=50) ready for hospital discharge.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.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.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.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.",
    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",
    month = "3",
    doi = "10.1016/j.apmr.2011.08.047",
    language = "English",
    volume = "93",
    pages = "466--470",
    journal = "Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation",
    issn = "0003-9993",
    publisher = "Elsevier",
    number = "3",

    }

    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. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apmr.2011.08.047

    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

    TY - JOUR

    T1 - The Use of Pedometers in Stroke Survivors

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

    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 - 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.Objectives: To determine (1) the feasibility of pedometers for stroke patients and (2) the level of agreement between pedometers and actual step count.Design: Observational agreement study.Setting: Six stroke units.Participants: Independently mobile stroke patients (N=50) ready for hospital discharge.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.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.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.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.

    AB - 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.Objectives: To determine (1) the feasibility of pedometers for stroke patients and (2) the level of agreement between pedometers and actual step count.Design: Observational agreement study.Setting: Six stroke units.Participants: Independently mobile stroke patients (N=50) ready for hospital discharge.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.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.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.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.

    U2 - 10.1016/j.apmr.2011.08.047

    DO - 10.1016/j.apmr.2011.08.047

    M3 - Article

    VL - 93

    SP - 466

    EP - 470

    JO - Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation

    JF - Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation

    SN - 0003-9993

    IS - 3

    ER -