Remote fitness assessment in younger and middle-aged to older adults: a comparison between laboratory- and videoconference-based assessment of selected measures of physical and cognitive fitness.

Abstract

Background: Digital technologies can play an important role in improving the limited accessibility of healthcare services in rural regions (e.g., via remote assessment). However, whether remote fitness assessments (RFA) of selected physical and cognitive fitness parameters are feasible both in younger and older persons and whether they can reproduce laboratory tests needs yet to be established. Thus, this study aimed to address this knowledge gap by investigating the feasibility, and reproducibility of RFA in younger and middle-aged to older adults (MOA).

Methods: A total of 31 younger adults and 32 MOAs participated in this study. At an interval of seven days, laboratory-based and remote assessments (via videoconferencing software) were conducted which included the quantification of the following parameters: (i) measurement of heart rate variability [HRV]; followed by (ii) cognitive testing to examine the level of attention, executive functions (oral Trail Making Test [A and B]), working memory, verbal short-term memory (digit span memory test and word list test (immediate recall)) and episodic memory (word list test (delayed recall)); followed by (iii) physical fitness assessments including performance tests of balance (balance test), functional strength ability of the lower limbs (5-time-sit-to-stand-test) and endurance capacity (3-min step test). Parameters of absolute and relative reliability were determined to assess the reproducibility of the laboratory-based and remote assessments.

Results: The selected physical and cognitive fitness parameters showed moderate to excellent relative reliability (intraclass correlation coefficient [ICC] = 0.52-0.95). The parameters of absolute reliability (Bland-Altman plot and standard error of measurement [SEM]) provide evidence for good reproducibility of HRV parameters and measures of physical fitness, whereas measures of cognitive fitness showed moderate to good reproducibility. On a descriptive level, the absolute and relative reliability of the selected measures of physical and cognitive fitness did not vary as a function of participants' age.

Conclusion: Our results suggest that RFA of selected measures of physical and cognitive fitness is feasible and reproduces corresponding laboratory results to a moderate to excellent level in both younger adults and MOA. Data showed that the reproducibility of laboratory-based and remote assessments is not influenced by the age of the participants. These findings support the use of digital technologies to improve the accessibility of healthcare services (e.g., in remote areas). However, as the reproducibility varies considerably across the different parameters, further studies are needed to evaluate the effects of an optimised standardisation of the remote assessments and confounding factors.