Treacy Daniel, Hassett Leanne, Schurr Karl, Chagpar Sakina, Paul Serene S, Sherrington Catherine
George Institute for Global Health, Sydney Medical School, The University of Sydney, PO Box M201, Missenden Road, New South Wales 2050, Australia.
George Institute for Global health, Sydney Medical School, The University of Sydney.
Phys Ther. 2017 May 1;97(5):581-588. doi: 10.1093/ptj/pzx010.
Commonly used activity monitors have been shown to be accurate in counting steps in active people; however, further validation is needed in slower walking populations.
To determine the validity of activity monitors for measuring step counts in rehabilitation inpatients compared with visually observed step counts. To explore the influence of gait parameters, activity monitor position, and use of walkers on activity monitor accuracy.
One hundred and sixty-six inpatients admitted to a rehabilitation unit with an average walking speed of 0.4 m/s (SD 0.2) wore 16 activity monitors (7 different devices in different positions) simultaneously during 6-minute and 6-m walks. The number of steps taken during the tests was also counted by a physical therapist. Gait parameters were assessed using the GAITRite system. To analyze the influence of different gait parameters, the percentage accuracy for each monitor was graphed against various gait parameters for each activity monitor.
The StepWatch, Fitbit One worn on the ankle and the ActivPAL showed excellent agreement with observed step count (ICC 2,1 0.98; 0.92; 0.78 respectively). Other devices (Fitbit Charge, Fitbit One worn on hip, G-Sensor, Garmin Vivofit, Actigraph) showed poor agreement with the observed step count (ICC 2,1 0.12-0.40). Percentage agreement with observed step count was highest for the StepWatch (mean 98%). The StepWatch and the Fitbit One worn on the ankle maintained accuracy in individuals who walked more slowly and with shorter strides but other devices were less accurate in these individuals.
There were small numbers of participants for some gait parameters.
The StepWatch showed the highest accuracy and closest agreement with observed step count. This device can be confidently used by researchers for accurate measurement of step counts in inpatient rehabilitation in individuals who walk slowly. If immediate feedback is desired, the Fitbit One when worn on the ankle would be the best choice for this population.
常用的活动监测器已被证明在计算活跃人群的步数方面是准确的；然而，在步行速度较慢的人群中还需要进一步验证。
确定活动监测器在测量康复住院患者步数方面相对于目视观察步数的有效性。探讨步态参数、活动监测器位置以及助行器的使用对活动监测器准确性的影响。
166名入住康复科的平均步行速度为0.4米/秒（标准差0.2）的住院患者在6分钟和6米步行过程中同时佩戴16个活动监测器（7种不同设备，处于不同位置）。测试期间的步数也由一名物理治疗师进行计数。使用GAITRite系统评估步态参数。为分析不同步态参数的影响，针对每个活动监测器，将每个监测器的准确率百分比与各种步态参数进行绘图。
StepWatch、戴在脚踝上的Fitbit One以及ActivPAL与观察到的步数显示出极好的一致性（组内相关系数ICC 2,1分别为0.98；0.92；0.78）。其他设备（Fitbit Charge、戴在臀部的Fitbit One、G - Sensor、佳明Vivofit、Actigraph）与观察到的步数显示出较差的一致性（ICC 2,1为0.12 - 0.40）。与观察到的步数的百分比一致性对于StepWatch最高（平均98%）。StepWatch和戴在脚踝上的Fitbit One在步行较慢且步幅较短的个体中保持准确性，但其他设备在这些个体中准确性较低。
某些步态参数的参与者数量较少。
StepWatch显示出最高的准确性且与观察到的步数最为一致。研究人员可以放心地使用该设备准确测量步行缓慢的住院康复患者的步数。如果需要即时反馈，对于该人群来说，戴在脚踝上的Fitbit One将是最佳选择。
