Walking on common ground: a cross-disciplinary scoping review on the clinical utility of digital mobility outcomes

Author:

Polhemus AshleyORCID,Ortiz Laura DelgadoORCID,Brittain GavinORCID,Chynkiamis NikolaosORCID,Salis Francesca,Gaßner HeikoORCID,Gross Michaela,Kirk Cameron,Rossanigo Rachele,Taraldsen Kristin,Balta Diletta,Breuls SofieORCID,Buttery Sara,Cardenas Gabriela,Endress Christoph,Gugenhan Julia,Keogh Alison,Kluge FelixORCID,Koch Sarah,Micó-Amigo M. Encarna,Nerz CorinnaORCID,Sieber ChloéORCID,Williams Parris,Bergquist Ronny,Bosch de Basea Magda,Buckley EllenORCID,Hansen ClintORCID,Mikolaizak A. Stefanie,Schwickert Lars,Scott Kirsty,Stallforth Sabine,van Uem Janet,Vereijken BeatrixORCID,Cereatti Andrea,Demeyer Heleen,Hopkinson NicholasORCID,Maetzler WalterORCID,Troosters Thierry,Vogiatzis Ioannis,Yarnall Alison,Becker Clemens,Garcia-Aymerich JudithORCID,Leocani Letizia,Mazzà Claudia,Rochester Lynn,Sharrack Basil,Frei Anja,Puhan Milo,

Abstract

AbstractPhysical mobility is essential to health, and patients often rate it as a high-priority clinical outcome. Digital mobility outcomes (DMOs), such as real-world gait speed or step count, show promise as clinical measures in many medical conditions. However, current research is nascent and fragmented by discipline. This scoping review maps existing evidence on the clinical utility of DMOs, identifying commonalities across traditional disciplinary divides. In November 2019, 11 databases were searched for records investigating the validity and responsiveness of 34 DMOs in four diverse medical conditions (Parkinson’s disease, multiple sclerosis, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, hip fracture). Searches yielded 19,672 unique records. After screening, 855 records representing 775 studies were included and charted in systematic maps. Studies frequently investigated gait speed (70.4% of studies), step length (30.7%), cadence (21.4%), and daily step count (20.7%). They studied differences between healthy and pathological gait (36.4%), associations between DMOs and clinical measures (48.8%) or outcomes (4.3%), and responsiveness to interventions (26.8%). Gait speed, step length, cadence, step time and step count exhibited consistent evidence of validity and responsiveness in multiple conditions, although the evidence was inconsistent or lacking for other DMOs. If DMOs are to be adopted as mainstream tools, further work is needed to establish their predictive validity, responsiveness, and ecological validity. Cross-disciplinary efforts to align methodology and validate DMOs may facilitate their adoption into clinical practice.

Publisher

Springer Science and Business Media LLC

Subject

Health Information Management,Health Informatics,Computer Science Applications,Medicine (miscellaneous)

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3