Evaluating the measurement properties and feasibility of physical activity and physical function assessments for children undergoing acute cancer treatment

Sarah L. Grimshaw , Nicholas F. Taylor , Rachel Conyers , Nora Shields
{"title":"Evaluating the measurement properties and feasibility of physical activity and physical function assessments for children undergoing acute cancer treatment","authors":"Sarah L. Grimshaw ,&nbsp;Nicholas F. Taylor ,&nbsp;Rachel Conyers ,&nbsp;Nora Shields","doi":"10.1016/j.jsampl.2024.100065","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Background</h3><p>As physical function and physical activity are often compromised among children and adolescents undergoing acute cancer treatment, psychometrically robust and feasible assessment tools are needed. The aim of this study is to evaluate the construct validity, responsiveness and feasibility of one physical activity assessment tool (Fitbit Inspire); and six physical function assessment tools (Movement ABC-2, Timed Up and Go, 30-s Chair Stand, Timed Rise from the Floor, Timed Up and Down Stairs, 6-min Walk Test) for children undergoing acute cancer treatment.</p></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><p>A prospectively-registered, mixed methods, single-group study evaluated measurement properties against <em>a priori</em> hypothesis using Consensus-based Standards for the selection of health status Measurement Instruments (COSMIN) framework. Feasibility was assessed quantitively (<em>a priori</em> thresholds), and qualitatively (semi-structured interviews, focus-groups).</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>Twenty children/adolescents (median age 13 ​± ​5 years, various cancer diagnoses), 20 parents and 16 clinicians participated. Fitbit was feasible to assess daily steps only, had evidence of construct validity, tendency to overestimate step count and adequate evidence of responsiveness (compared to Actigraph). The 30-s Chair stand, 6-min Walk Test and Timed Up and Go were feasible and showed evidence of construct validity and responsiveness. To maximise feasibility, consideration of timing and intent of assessment are crucial.</p></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><p>Fitbit has limitations as a physical activity assessment tool. The 30-s Chair Stand, 6-min Walk Test and Timed Up and Go were feasible to use and showed favourable measurement properties to assess physical function.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":74029,"journal":{"name":"JSAMS plus","volume":"4 ","pages":"Article 100065"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-06-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2772696724000139/pdfft?md5=ae2f7887bd47d31e56c25225e15fdbd0&pid=1-s2.0-S2772696724000139-main.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"JSAMS plus","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2772696724000139","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background

As physical function and physical activity are often compromised among children and adolescents undergoing acute cancer treatment, psychometrically robust and feasible assessment tools are needed. The aim of this study is to evaluate the construct validity, responsiveness and feasibility of one physical activity assessment tool (Fitbit Inspire); and six physical function assessment tools (Movement ABC-2, Timed Up and Go, 30-s Chair Stand, Timed Rise from the Floor, Timed Up and Down Stairs, 6-min Walk Test) for children undergoing acute cancer treatment.

Methods

A prospectively-registered, mixed methods, single-group study evaluated measurement properties against a priori hypothesis using Consensus-based Standards for the selection of health status Measurement Instruments (COSMIN) framework. Feasibility was assessed quantitively (a priori thresholds), and qualitatively (semi-structured interviews, focus-groups).

Results

Twenty children/adolescents (median age 13 ​± ​5 years, various cancer diagnoses), 20 parents and 16 clinicians participated. Fitbit was feasible to assess daily steps only, had evidence of construct validity, tendency to overestimate step count and adequate evidence of responsiveness (compared to Actigraph). The 30-s Chair stand, 6-min Walk Test and Timed Up and Go were feasible and showed evidence of construct validity and responsiveness. To maximise feasibility, consideration of timing and intent of assessment are crucial.

Conclusion

Fitbit has limitations as a physical activity assessment tool. The 30-s Chair Stand, 6-min Walk Test and Timed Up and Go were feasible to use and showed favourable measurement properties to assess physical function.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
评估对接受急性癌症治疗的儿童进行身体活动和身体功能评估的测量特性和可行性
背景由于正在接受急性癌症治疗的儿童和青少年的身体功能和体力活动通常会受到影响,因此需要心理计量学上可靠可行的评估工具。本研究旨在评估一种体力活动评估工具(Fitbit Inspire)和六种体力功能评估工具(运动 ABC-2、定时起立、30 秒椅子站立、定时从地上爬起、定时上下楼梯、6 分钟步行测试)对接受急性癌症治疗的儿童的构建有效性、响应性和可行性。对可行性进行了定量(先验阈值)和定性(半结构式访谈、焦点小组)评估。结果20 名儿童/青少年(中位年龄 13 ± 5 岁,各种癌症诊断)、20 名家长和 16 名临床医生参与了研究。Fitbit仅适用于评估每日步数,具有结构效度、高估步数的倾向和充分的响应性证据(与Actigraph相比)。椅子站立 30 秒、6 分钟步行测试和定时起立行走都是可行的,并有证据显示其结构有效性和响应性。为了最大限度地提高可行性,考虑评估的时间和意图至关重要。30秒椅子站立、6分钟步行测试和定时起立行走的使用是可行的,并显示出评估身体功能的良好测量特性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Highlighting head injury research & special issue on exercise oncology The expanding role of exercise oncology in cancer care: An editorial highlighting emerging research Addressing rising knee injury and surgery rates with real-word data; the need for a clinical knee injury registry Effect of supervised exercise training on objectively measured physical activity in patients during anthracycline therapy Ballet after breast cancer: A qualitative evaluation of a novel 16-week ballet intervention for women after breast cancer
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1