{"title":"Daily steps, walking tests, and functioning in chronic stroke; comparing independent walkers to device-users.","authors":"Chedva Levin, Yishai Bachar-Kirshenboim, Debbie Rand","doi":"10.1002/pri.2035","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background and purpose: </strong>Community mobility post-stroke is important for gaining independence in daily activities. Walking devices can facilitate mobility, but it remains unclear whether individuals who use a walking device walk as many daily steps as those who do not require a device. It is also unclear whether these groups differ in their independence in daily living. This study aimed (1) to compare daily steps, walking tests, and independence in basic and instrumental activities of daily living (IADL) six months post-stroke between individuals who walk independently and individuals who use a walking device, (2) within each group to assess correlations between daily steps and walking tests, independence in basic and IADL.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Thirty-seven community-dwelling individuals with chronic stroke; 22 participants used a walking-device and 15 participants walked independently. Daily steps were calculated as a 3-day mean by hip accelerometers. Clinical walking tests included the 10-m-walk-test, Timed Up & Go and 'Walking While Talking'. Daily living was assessed using the Functional-Independence Measure and the IADL questionnaire.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Daily steps of the device-users were significantly lower than the independent-walkers (195-8068 versus 147-14010 steps/day) but independence in daily living was not significantly different. Different walking tests correlated with daily steps for device-users and independent-walkers.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>This preliminary investigation in chronic stroke revealed that device-users walk significantly fewer daily steps but are as independent in daily living as independent-walkers. Clinicians should differentiate between individuals with and without a walking device and the use of different clinical walking tests to explain daily steps should be considered. Further research is needed to assess the impact of a walking device post-stroke.</p>","PeriodicalId":47243,"journal":{"name":"Physiotherapy Research International","volume":" ","pages":"e2035"},"PeriodicalIF":1.5000,"publicationDate":"2024-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Physiotherapy Research International","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1002/pri.2035","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2023/7/11 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"REHABILITATION","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Background and purpose: Community mobility post-stroke is important for gaining independence in daily activities. Walking devices can facilitate mobility, but it remains unclear whether individuals who use a walking device walk as many daily steps as those who do not require a device. It is also unclear whether these groups differ in their independence in daily living. This study aimed (1) to compare daily steps, walking tests, and independence in basic and instrumental activities of daily living (IADL) six months post-stroke between individuals who walk independently and individuals who use a walking device, (2) within each group to assess correlations between daily steps and walking tests, independence in basic and IADL.
Methods: Thirty-seven community-dwelling individuals with chronic stroke; 22 participants used a walking-device and 15 participants walked independently. Daily steps were calculated as a 3-day mean by hip accelerometers. Clinical walking tests included the 10-m-walk-test, Timed Up & Go and 'Walking While Talking'. Daily living was assessed using the Functional-Independence Measure and the IADL questionnaire.
Results: Daily steps of the device-users were significantly lower than the independent-walkers (195-8068 versus 147-14010 steps/day) but independence in daily living was not significantly different. Different walking tests correlated with daily steps for device-users and independent-walkers.
Conclusions: This preliminary investigation in chronic stroke revealed that device-users walk significantly fewer daily steps but are as independent in daily living as independent-walkers. Clinicians should differentiate between individuals with and without a walking device and the use of different clinical walking tests to explain daily steps should be considered. Further research is needed to assess the impact of a walking device post-stroke.
期刊介绍：
Physiotherapy Research International is an international peer reviewed journal dedicated to the exchange of knowledge that is directly relevant to specialist areas of physiotherapy theory, practice, and research. Our aim is to promote a high level of scholarship and build on the current evidence base to inform the advancement of the physiotherapy profession. We publish original research on a wide range of topics e.g. Primary research testing new physiotherapy treatments; methodological research; measurement and outcome research and qualitative research of interest to researchers, clinicians and educators. Further, we aim to publish high quality papers that represent the range of cultures and settings where physiotherapy services are delivered. We attract a wide readership from physiotherapists and others working in diverse clinical and academic settings. We aim to promote an international debate amongst the profession about current best evidence based practice. Papers are directed primarily towards the physiotherapy profession, but can be relevant to a wide range of professional groups. The growth of interdisciplinary research is also key to our aims and scope, and we encourage relevant submissions from other professional groups. The journal actively encourages submissions which utilise a breadth of different methodologies and research designs to facilitate addressing key questions related to the physiotherapy practice. PRI seeks to encourage good quality topical debates on a range of relevant issues and promote critical reflection on decision making and implementation of physiotherapy interventions.
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
分享
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
扫码关注我们
