{"title":"Gait speed self-prediction accuracy for people with neurological conditions in inpatient rehabilitation","authors":"Suzanne Trojanowski, C. Tiernan, A. Yorke","doi":"10.1080/10833196.2022.2039870","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Introduction A component of engaging in functional motor tasks is the ability to assess one’s own motor performance in relationship to that task. Objective The primary purpose of this exploratory study is to investigate gait speed prediction accuracy for patients with neurological conditions participating in an Inpatient Rehabilitation (IPR) program. The secondary purpose was to evaluate what factors contributed to patient judgment error. Methods Nineteen subjects with a neurologic diagnosis who were admitted to an IPR unit were asked to predict their gait speed prior to execution of the 10-meter walk test. Data was analyzed to compare predicted versus actual gait speeds. Results Strong Pearson correlations (r) between actual and predicted gait speeds were found at time 1 (r = 0.90; 95%CI = 0.83, 0.96; p<.001), time 2 (r = 0.87; 95%CI = 0.74, 0.96; p<.001), and time 3 (r = 0.91; 95% CI = 0.82, 0.97; p<.001). Ninety-five percent limits of agreement (LOA) were calculated to be −0.07, 0.30 m/s at time 1; −0.21, 0.37 m/s at time 2; and −0.22, 0.34 at time 3. Conclusions Despite the strong correlations, there appears to be less certainty surrounding the relationship between actual gait speed and predicted gait speed when examining the limits of agreement. In general, subjects ambulated faster than they predicted, underestimating their actual performance. A mismatch between predicted gait speed and actual gait speed performance can have clinical implications.","PeriodicalId":46541,"journal":{"name":"Physical Therapy Reviews","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.8000,"publicationDate":"2022-02-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Physical Therapy Reviews","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/10833196.2022.2039870","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"REHABILITATION","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Abstract Introduction A component of engaging in functional motor tasks is the ability to assess one’s own motor performance in relationship to that task. Objective The primary purpose of this exploratory study is to investigate gait speed prediction accuracy for patients with neurological conditions participating in an Inpatient Rehabilitation (IPR) program. The secondary purpose was to evaluate what factors contributed to patient judgment error. Methods Nineteen subjects with a neurologic diagnosis who were admitted to an IPR unit were asked to predict their gait speed prior to execution of the 10-meter walk test. Data was analyzed to compare predicted versus actual gait speeds. Results Strong Pearson correlations (r) between actual and predicted gait speeds were found at time 1 (r = 0.90; 95%CI = 0.83, 0.96; p<.001), time 2 (r = 0.87; 95%CI = 0.74, 0.96; p<.001), and time 3 (r = 0.91; 95% CI = 0.82, 0.97; p<.001). Ninety-five percent limits of agreement (LOA) were calculated to be −0.07, 0.30 m/s at time 1; −0.21, 0.37 m/s at time 2; and −0.22, 0.34 at time 3. Conclusions Despite the strong correlations, there appears to be less certainty surrounding the relationship between actual gait speed and predicted gait speed when examining the limits of agreement. In general, subjects ambulated faster than they predicted, underestimating their actual performance. A mismatch between predicted gait speed and actual gait speed performance can have clinical implications.
期刊介绍:
Physical Therapy Reviews is an international journal which aims to publish contemporary reviews, discussion papers and editorials within physical therapy, and in those basic and clinical sciences which are the basis of physical therapy. The journal is aimed at all those involved in research, teaching and practice within the area of physical therapy. Reviews (both descriptive and systematic) are invited in the following areas, which reflect the breadth and diversity of practice within physical therapy: •neurological rehabilitation •movement and exercise •orthopaedics and rheumatology •manual therapy and massage •sports medicine •measurement •chest physiotherapy •electrotherapeutics •obstetrics and gynaecology •complementary therapies •professional issues •musculoskeletal rehabilitation