This Article Full Text (PDF) References Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Add to Saved Citations Download to citation manager Request Permissions Request Reprints Add to My Marked Citations Citing Articles Citing Articles via Google Scholar Citing Articles via Scopus Google Scholar Articles by Elsworth, C. Articles by Wade, D. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Elsworth, C. Articles by Wade, D. Pubmed/NCBI databases Medline Plus Health Information Neurologic Diseases Social Bookmarking                         What's this?

Pedometer step counts in individuals with neurological conditions

Oxford Brookes University and University of Birmingham, celsworth{at}brookes.ac.uk

Helen Dawes

Oxford Brookes University and University of Oxford

Charlotte Winward

Oxford Brookes University and Oxford Centre for Enablement

Ken Howells

Oxford Brookes University

Johnny Collett

Oxford Brookes University

Andrea Dennis

Oxford Brookes University

Catherine Sackley

University of Birmingham

Derick Wade

Oxford Centre for Enablement, UK

Objective: To examine the accuracy of measuring step counts using a pedometer in participants with neurological conditions and healthy volunteers in relation to a manual step count tally.

Setting: Oxford Centre for Enablement, Nuffield Orthopaedic Centre NHS Trust, Oxford, UK.

Subjects: Healthy adults (n = 13, age: mean 29, SD = 12) and adults with neurological conditions (n=20 stroke, n=16 multiple sclerosis, n=5 muscular dystrophy, n=1 spinal cord injury, n=1 traumatic brain injury; age: mean 54, SD=13).

Main measures: Individuals walked for 2 minutes at self-selected walking speeds (SSWS) wearing a pedometer. Healthy individuals were then asked to walk at slow walking speeds (SWS). Step counts were recorded manually and using a pedometer.

Results: In healthy individuals there was no difference between manually measured and pedometer counts during walking (P>0.05). In adults with neurological conditions the pedometers undercounted (P = 0.003); bias (random error): 27 (111); percentage variability 30% and intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) 0.66. In neurological adults, from regression analysis the relationship between error and walking speed was cubic, with walking speed accounting for 29% of pedometer error. Healthy individuals showed greater variability and undercounting at SWS bias (random error): 10 (31), percentage variability 8% and ICC 0.73, compared with SSWS bias (random error): —3 (13), percentage variability 3% and ICC 0.84.

Conclusions: Pedometers may undercount when used for people with neurological conditions. There may be variability in pedometer accuracy but this was not strongly related to walking speed. The suitability of pedometer use for exercise monitoring should be individually determined.

Clinical Rehabilitation, Vol. 23, No. 2, 171-175 (2009)
DOI: 10.1177/0269215508098895


CiteULike    Complore    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter    What's this?