Clinical rehabilitation · 2019
Pedometers alone do not increase mobility in inpatient rehabilitation: a randomized controlled trial.
СтатьяРандомизированное исследованиеНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Atkins Amy, Cannell John, Barr Christopher
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: To test if pedometers, as a motivational tool, could affect mobility outcomes in inpatient rehabilitation.
DESIGN: Randomized controlled clinical trial.
SETTING: Subacute hospital rehabilitation unit in Australia.
PARTICIPANTS: A total of 78 participants with reduced mobility and clinician-determined capacity to improve.
INTERVENTIONS: Both groups received usual care. For the intervention group, a pedometer was worn on the hip with the step count visible to participant and recorded daily on an exercise log. For the control group, a pedometer fixed shut was worn on the hip and they recorded estimated distances walked on an exercise log.
MAIN MEASURES: Primary outcome was functional mobility - De Morton Mobility Index. Secondary outcome measures were walking velocity, functional independence measure, time spent upright and daily step count.
RESULTS: Significant improvements over time (P < 0.001) in functional mobility, comfortable walking velocity and functional independence measure were not influenced by the intervention. The daily average upright time (hours) in the first week of intervention was different (P = 0.004) between the intervention group (median, interquartile range (IQR): 1.67, 1.77) compared to the control group (median, IQR: 1.12, 0.82).
CONCLUSION: Pedometers as a motivational tool without targets do not improve functional mobility in this population. Pedometers may improve daily upright time in this setting.
DESIGN: Randomized controlled clinical trial.
SETTING: Subacute hospital rehabilitation unit in Australia.
PARTICIPANTS: A total of 78 participants with reduced mobility and clinician-determined capacity to improve.
INTERVENTIONS: Both groups received usual care. For the intervention group, a pedometer was worn on the hip with the step count visible to participant and recorded daily on an exercise log. For the control group, a pedometer fixed shut was worn on the hip and they recorded estimated distances walked on an exercise log.
MAIN MEASURES: Primary outcome was functional mobility - De Morton Mobility Index. Secondary outcome measures were walking velocity, functional independence measure, time spent upright and daily step count.
RESULTS: Significant improvements over time (P < 0.001) in functional mobility, comfortable walking velocity and functional independence measure were not influenced by the intervention. The daily average upright time (hours) in the first week of intervention was different (P = 0.004) between the intervention group (median, interquartile range (IQR): 1.67, 1.77) compared to the control group (median, IQR: 1.12, 0.82).
CONCLUSION: Pedometers as a motivational tool without targets do not improve functional mobility in this population. Pedometers may improve daily upright time in this setting.