BackgroundIntegrating rehabilitation services through wearable systems has the potential to accurately assess the type, intensity, duration, and quality of movement necessary for procuring key outcome measures.ObjectivesThis review aims to explore wearable accelerometry-based technology (ABT) capable of assessing mobility-related functional activities intended for rehabilitation purposes in community settings for neurological populations. In this review, we focus on the accuracy of ABT-based methods, types of outcome measures, and the implementation of ABT in non-clinical settings for rehabilitation purposes.Data sourcesCochrane, PubMed, Web of Knowledge, EMBASE, and IEEE Xplore. The search strategy covered three main areas, namely wearable technology, rehabilitation, and setting.Study selectionPotentially relevant studies were categorized as systems either evaluating methods or outcome parameters.MethodsMethodological qualities of studies were assessed by two customized checklists, depending on their categorization and rated independently by three blinded reviewers.ResultsTwelve studies involving ABT met the eligibility criteria, of which three studies were identified as having implemented ABT for rehabilitation purposes in non-clinical settings. From the twelve studies, seven studies achieved high methodological quality scores. These studies were not only capable of assessing the type, quantity, and quality measures of functional activities, but could also distinguish healthy from non-healthy subjects and/or address disease severity levels.ConclusionWhile many studies support ABT’s potential for telerehabilitation, few actually utilized it to assess mobility-related functional activities outside laboratory settings. To generate more appropriate outcome measures, there is a clear need to translate research findings and novel methods into practice.

No abstract

This study explored the potential utility of gait analysis using a single sensor unit (inertial measurement unit [IMU]) as a simple tool to detect peripheral neuropathy in people with diabetes. Seventeen people (14 men) aged 63±9 years (mean±SD) with diabetic peripheral neuropathy performed a 10-m walk test instrumented with an IMU on the lower back. Compared to a reference healthy control data set (matched by gender, age, and body mass index) both spatiotemporal and gait control variables were different between groups, with walking speed, step time, and SDa (gait control parameter) demonstrating good discriminatory power (receiver operating characteristic area under the curve >0.8). These results provide a proof of principle of this relatively simple approach which, when applied in clinical practice, can detect a signal from those with known diabetes peripheral neuropathy. The technology has the potential to be used both routinely in the clinic and for tele-health applications. Further research should focus on investigating its efficacy as an early indicator of or effectiveness of the management of peripheral neuropathy. This could support the development of interventions to prevent complications such as foot ulceration or Charcot's foot.

BackgroundThe majority of stroke patients are inactive outside formal therapy sessions. Tailored activity feedback via a smartwatch has the potential to increase inpatient activity. The aim of the study was to identify the challenges and support needed by ward staff and researchers and to examine the feasibility of conducting a randomised controlled trial (RCT) using smartwatch activity monitors in research-naive rehabilitation wards. Objectives (Phase 1 and 2) were to report any challenges and support needed and determine the recruitment and retention rate, completion of outcome measures, smartwatch adherence rate, (Phase 2 only) readiness to randomise, adherence to protocol (intervention fidelity) and potential for effect.MethodsFirst admission, stroke patients (onset < 4 months) aged 40–75, able to walk 10 m prior to stroke and follow a two-stage command with sufficient cognition and vision (clinically judged) were recruited within the Second Affiliated Hospital of Anhui University of Traditional Chinese Medicine. Phase 1: a non-randomised observation phase (to allow practice of protocol)—patients received no activity feedback. Phase 2: a parallel single-blind pilot RCT. Patients were randomised into one of two groups: to receive daily activity feedback over a 9-h period or to receive no activity feedback. EQ-5D-5L, WHODAS and RMI were conducted at baseline, discharge and 3 months post-discharge. Descriptive statistics were performed on recruitment, retention, completion and activity counts as well as adherence to protocol.ResultsOut of 470 ward admissions, 11% were recruited across the two phases, over a 30-week period. Retention rate at 3 months post-discharge was 48%. Twenty-two percent of patients dropped out post-baseline assessment, 78% completed baseline and discharge admissions, from which 62% were assessed 3 months post-discharge. Smartwatch data were received from all patients. Patients were correctly randomised into each RCT group. RCT adherence rate to wearing the smartwatch was 80%. Baseline activity was exceeded for 65% of days in the feedback group compared to 55% of days in the no feedback group.ConclusionsDelivery of a smartwatch RCT is feasible in a research-naive rehabilitation ward. However, frequent support and guidance of research-naive staff are required to ensure completeness of clinical assessment data and protocol adherence.Trials registrationClinicalTrials.gov Identifier, NCT02587585–30th September 2015Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (10.1186/s40814-018-0345-x) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

BackgroundPracticing activities improves recovery after stroke, but many people in hospital do little activity. Feedback on activity using an accelerometer is a potential method to increase activity in hospital inpatients. This study’s goal is to investigate the effect of feedback, enabled by a Smart watch, on daily physical activity levels during inpatient stroke rehabilitation and the short-term effects on simple functional activities, primarily mobility.Methods/designA randomized controlled trial will be undertaken within the stroke rehabilitation wards of the Second Affiliated hospital of Anhui University of Traditional Chinese Medicine, Hefei, China. The study participants will be stroke survivors who meet inclusion criteria for the study, primarily: able to participate, no more than 4 months after stroke and walking independently before stroke. Participants will all receive standard local rehabilitation and will be randomly assigned either to receive regular feedback about activity levels, relative to a daily goal tailored by the smart watch over five time periods throughout a working day, or to no feedback, but still wearing the Smart watch. The intervention will last up to 3 weeks, ending sooner if discharged. The data to be collected in all participants include measures of daily activity (Smart watch measure); mobility (Rivermead Mobility Index and 10-metre walking time); independence in personal care (Barthel Activities of Daily Living (ADL) Index); overall activities (the World Health Organization (WHO) Disability Assessment Scale, 12-item version); and quality of life (the Euro-Qol 5L5D). Data will be collected by assessors blinded to allocation of the intervention at baseline, 3 weeks or at discharge (whichever is the sooner); and a reduced data set will be collected at 12 weeks by telephone interview. The primary outcome will be change in daily accelerometer activity scores. Secondary outcomes are compliance and adherence to wearing the watch, and changes in mobility, independence in personal care activities, and health-related quality of life.DiscussionThis project is being implemented in a large city hospital with limited resources and limited research experience. There has been a pilot feasibility study using the Smart watch, which highlighted some areas needing change and these are incorporated in this protocol.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02587585. Registered on 30 September 2015. Chinese Clinical Trial Registry, ChiCTR-IOR-15007179. Registered on 8 August 2015.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (10.1186/s13063-018-2476-z) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.