移动为重点的物理结果测量电信技术(变焦):内部和内部可靠性试验。

Marie-Louise Bird, Felix Peel, Matt Schmidt, Natalie A Fini, Emily Ramage, Brodie M Sakakibara, Dawn B Simpson, Carey Mather, Dominique A Cadilhac, Kiran D K Ahuja, Heather Bridgman, Coralie English
{"title":"移动为重点的物理结果测量电信技术(变焦):内部和内部可靠性试验。","authors":"Marie-Louise Bird,&nbsp;Felix Peel,&nbsp;Matt Schmidt,&nbsp;Natalie A Fini,&nbsp;Emily Ramage,&nbsp;Brodie M Sakakibara,&nbsp;Dawn B Simpson,&nbsp;Carey Mather,&nbsp;Dominique A Cadilhac,&nbsp;Kiran D K Ahuja,&nbsp;Heather Bridgman,&nbsp;Coralie English","doi":"10.2196/38101","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Rehabilitation provided via telehealth offers an alternative to currently limited in-person health care. Effective rehabilitation depends on accurate and relevant assessments that reliably measure changes in function over time. The reliability of a suite of relevant assessments to measure the impact of rehabilitation on physical function is unknown.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>We aimed to measure the intrarater reliability of mobility-focused physical outcome measures delivered via Zoom (a commonly used telecommunication platform) and interrater reliability, comparing Zoom with in-person measures.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>In this reliability trial, healthy volunteers were recruited to complete 7 mobility-focused outcome measures in view of a laptop, under instructions from a remotely based researcher who undertook the remote evaluations. An in-person researcher (providing the benchmark scores) concurrently recorded their scores. Interrater and intrarater reliability were assessed for Grip Strength, Functional Reach Test, 5-Time Sit to Stand, 3- and 4-Meter Walks and Timed Up and Go, using intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC) and Bland-Altman plots. These tests were chosen because they cover a wide array of physical mobility, strength, and balance constructs; require little to no assistance from a clinician; can be performed in the limits of a home environment; and are likely to be feasible over a telehealth delivery mode.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 30 participants (mean age 36.2, SD 12.5 years; n=19, 63% male) completed all assessments. Interrater reliability was excellent for Grip Strength (ICC=0.99) and Functional Reach Test (ICC=0.99), good for 5-Time Sit to Stand (ICC=0.842) and 4-Meter Walk (ICC=0.76), moderate for Timed Up and Go (ICC=0.64), and poor for 3-Meter Walk (ICC=-0.46). Intrarater reliability, accessed by the remote researcher, was excellent for Grip Strength (ICC=0.91); good for Timed Up and Go, 3-Meter Walk, 4-Meter Walk, and Functional Reach (ICC=0.84-0.89); and moderate for 5-Time Sit to Stand (ICC=0.67). Although recorded simultaneously, the following time-based assessments were recorded as significantly longer via Zoom: 5-Time Sit to Stand (1.2 seconds), Timed Up and Go (1.0 seconds), and 3-Meter Walk (1.3 seconds).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Untimed mobility-focused physical outcome measures have excellent interrater reliability between in-person and telehealth measurements. Timed outcome measures took approximately 1 second longer via Zoom, reducing the reliability of tests with a shorter duration. Small time differences favoring in-person attendance are of a similar magnitude to clinically important differences, indicating assessments undertaken using telecommunications technology (Zoom) cannot be compared directly with face-to-face delivery. This has implications for clinicians using blended (ie, some face-to-face and some via the internet) assessments. High intrarater reliability of mobility-focused physical outcome measures has been demonstrated in this study.</p>","PeriodicalId":36224,"journal":{"name":"JMIR Rehabilitation and Assistive Technologies","volume":" ","pages":"e38101"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-08-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9446136/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Mobility-Focused Physical Outcome Measures Over Telecommunication Technology (Zoom): Intra and Interrater Reliability Trial.\",\"authors\":\"Marie-Louise Bird,&nbsp;Felix Peel,&nbsp;Matt Schmidt,&nbsp;Natalie A Fini,&nbsp;Emily Ramage,&nbsp;Brodie M Sakakibara,&nbsp;Dawn B Simpson,&nbsp;Carey Mather,&nbsp;Dominique A Cadilhac,&nbsp;Kiran D K Ahuja,&nbsp;Heather Bridgman,&nbsp;Coralie English\",\"doi\":\"10.2196/38101\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Rehabilitation provided via telehealth offers an alternative to currently limited in-person health care. Effective rehabilitation depends on accurate and relevant assessments that reliably measure changes in function over time. The reliability of a suite of relevant assessments to measure the impact of rehabilitation on physical function is unknown.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>We aimed to measure the intrarater reliability of mobility-focused physical outcome measures delivered via Zoom (a commonly used telecommunication platform) and interrater reliability, comparing Zoom with in-person measures.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>In this reliability trial, healthy volunteers were recruited to complete 7 mobility-focused outcome measures in view of a laptop, under instructions from a remotely based researcher who undertook the remote evaluations. An in-person researcher (providing the benchmark scores) concurrently recorded their scores. Interrater and intrarater reliability were assessed for Grip Strength, Functional Reach Test, 5-Time Sit to Stand, 3- and 4-Meter Walks and Timed Up and Go, using intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC) and Bland-Altman plots. These tests were chosen because they cover a wide array of physical mobility, strength, and balance constructs; require little to no assistance from a clinician; can be performed in the limits of a home environment; and are likely to be feasible over a telehealth delivery mode.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 30 participants (mean age 36.2, SD 12.5 years; n=19, 63% male) completed all assessments. Interrater reliability was excellent for Grip Strength (ICC=0.99) and Functional Reach Test (ICC=0.99), good for 5-Time Sit to Stand (ICC=0.842) and 4-Meter Walk (ICC=0.76), moderate for Timed Up and Go (ICC=0.64), and poor for 3-Meter Walk (ICC=-0.46). Intrarater reliability, accessed by the remote researcher, was excellent for Grip Strength (ICC=0.91); good for Timed Up and Go, 3-Meter Walk, 4-Meter Walk, and Functional Reach (ICC=0.84-0.89); and moderate for 5-Time Sit to Stand (ICC=0.67). Although recorded simultaneously, the following time-based assessments were recorded as significantly longer via Zoom: 5-Time Sit to Stand (1.2 seconds), Timed Up and Go (1.0 seconds), and 3-Meter Walk (1.3 seconds).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Untimed mobility-focused physical outcome measures have excellent interrater reliability between in-person and telehealth measurements. Timed outcome measures took approximately 1 second longer via Zoom, reducing the reliability of tests with a shorter duration. Small time differences favoring in-person attendance are of a similar magnitude to clinically important differences, indicating assessments undertaken using telecommunications technology (Zoom) cannot be compared directly with face-to-face delivery. This has implications for clinicians using blended (ie, some face-to-face and some via the internet) assessments. High intrarater reliability of mobility-focused physical outcome measures has been demonstrated in this study.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":36224,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"JMIR Rehabilitation and Assistive Technologies\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"e38101\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-08-22\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9446136/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"JMIR Rehabilitation and Assistive Technologies\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.2196/38101\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"Medicine\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"JMIR Rehabilitation and Assistive Technologies","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2196/38101","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"Medicine","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:通过远程保健提供的康复是目前有限的面对面保健的另一种选择。有效的康复取决于准确和相关的评估,可靠地测量功能随时间的变化。一套测量康复对身体功能影响的相关评估的可靠性尚不清楚。目的:我们旨在测量通过Zoom(一种常用的电信平台)提供的以移动为重点的物理结果测量的内部可靠性和内部可靠性,并将Zoom与面对面测量进行比较。方法:在这项可靠性试验中,招募健康志愿者在远程研究人员的指导下,通过笔记本电脑完成7项以活动为重点的结果测量。一名现场研究人员(提供基准分数)同时记录他们的分数。采用类内相关系数(ICC)和Bland-Altman图,评估了握力、功能伸展测试、5次坐立、3米和4米步行以及计时起身和行走的组间和组内信度。选择这些测试是因为它们涵盖了广泛的身体活动、力量和平衡结构;几乎不需要临床医生的帮助;可在有限的家庭环境中进行;并且可能在远程医疗交付模式上是可行的。结果:共有30名参与者(平均年龄36.2岁,SD 12.5岁;N =19(63%男性)完成了所有评估。在握力测试(ICC=0.99)和功能伸展测试(ICC=0.99)中,评分者的信度非常好,在5次坐立测试(ICC=0.842)和4米步行测试(ICC=0.76)中,评分者的信度中等(ICC=0.64),在3米步行测试(ICC=-0.46)中评分者的信度较差。远程研究人员访问的内部信度对握力非常好(ICC=0.91);适用于计时起跑、3米步行、4米步行和功能性伸展(ICC=0.84-0.89);中度为5次坐立(ICC=0.67)。虽然是同时记录的,但以下基于时间的评估通过Zoom记录的时间明显更长:5-Time坐到站(1.2秒),Timed Up and Go(1.0秒),以及3米步行(1.3秒)。结论:非定时的以移动为重点的身体结果测量在面对面和远程医疗测量之间具有出色的互信度。通过Zoom计时结果测量大约多花了1秒,降低了测试的可靠性,持续时间较短。有利于亲自就诊的小时间差异与临床重要差异的大小相似,表明使用电信技术(Zoom)进行的评估不能直接与面对面交付进行比较。这对临床医生使用混合评估(即,一些面对面和一些通过互联网)有影响。本研究证明了以活动为重点的身体结果测量的高内部可靠性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

摘要图片

摘要图片

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
Mobility-Focused Physical Outcome Measures Over Telecommunication Technology (Zoom): Intra and Interrater Reliability Trial.

Background: Rehabilitation provided via telehealth offers an alternative to currently limited in-person health care. Effective rehabilitation depends on accurate and relevant assessments that reliably measure changes in function over time. The reliability of a suite of relevant assessments to measure the impact of rehabilitation on physical function is unknown.

Objective: We aimed to measure the intrarater reliability of mobility-focused physical outcome measures delivered via Zoom (a commonly used telecommunication platform) and interrater reliability, comparing Zoom with in-person measures.

Methods: In this reliability trial, healthy volunteers were recruited to complete 7 mobility-focused outcome measures in view of a laptop, under instructions from a remotely based researcher who undertook the remote evaluations. An in-person researcher (providing the benchmark scores) concurrently recorded their scores. Interrater and intrarater reliability were assessed for Grip Strength, Functional Reach Test, 5-Time Sit to Stand, 3- and 4-Meter Walks and Timed Up and Go, using intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC) and Bland-Altman plots. These tests were chosen because they cover a wide array of physical mobility, strength, and balance constructs; require little to no assistance from a clinician; can be performed in the limits of a home environment; and are likely to be feasible over a telehealth delivery mode.

Results: A total of 30 participants (mean age 36.2, SD 12.5 years; n=19, 63% male) completed all assessments. Interrater reliability was excellent for Grip Strength (ICC=0.99) and Functional Reach Test (ICC=0.99), good for 5-Time Sit to Stand (ICC=0.842) and 4-Meter Walk (ICC=0.76), moderate for Timed Up and Go (ICC=0.64), and poor for 3-Meter Walk (ICC=-0.46). Intrarater reliability, accessed by the remote researcher, was excellent for Grip Strength (ICC=0.91); good for Timed Up and Go, 3-Meter Walk, 4-Meter Walk, and Functional Reach (ICC=0.84-0.89); and moderate for 5-Time Sit to Stand (ICC=0.67). Although recorded simultaneously, the following time-based assessments were recorded as significantly longer via Zoom: 5-Time Sit to Stand (1.2 seconds), Timed Up and Go (1.0 seconds), and 3-Meter Walk (1.3 seconds).

Conclusions: Untimed mobility-focused physical outcome measures have excellent interrater reliability between in-person and telehealth measurements. Timed outcome measures took approximately 1 second longer via Zoom, reducing the reliability of tests with a shorter duration. Small time differences favoring in-person attendance are of a similar magnitude to clinically important differences, indicating assessments undertaken using telecommunications technology (Zoom) cannot be compared directly with face-to-face delivery. This has implications for clinicians using blended (ie, some face-to-face and some via the internet) assessments. High intrarater reliability of mobility-focused physical outcome measures has been demonstrated in this study.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
4.20
自引率
0.00%
发文量
31
审稿时长
12 weeks
期刊最新文献
An Ecological Momentary Assessment and Intervention Tool for Memory in Chronic Traumatic Brain Injury: Development and Usability of Memory Ecological Momentary Intervention. Navigation Training for Persons With Visual Disability Through Multisensory Assistive Technology: Mixed Methods Experimental Study. Mainstream Technologies in Facilities for People With Intellectual Disabilities: Multiple-Methods Study Using the Nonadoption, Abandonment, Scale-Up, Spread, and Sustainability Framework. Capabilities for Using Telemonitoring in Physiotherapy Treatment: Exploratory Qualitative Study. Integrated Approach Using Intuitionistic Fuzzy Multicriteria Decision-Making to Support Classifier Selection for Technology Adoption in Patients with Parkinson Disease: Algorithm Development and Validation.
×
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