通过视频会议评估脑卒中患者平衡和行走能力的临床测量

IF 0.9 4区 医学 Q4 REHABILITATION
Tzu-Hsuan Peng, A. Harris, A. Tang, B. Sakakibara, J. Eng, C. Pollock
{"title":"通过视频会议评估脑卒中患者平衡和行走能力的临床测量","authors":"Tzu-Hsuan Peng, A. Harris, A. Tang, B. Sakakibara, J. Eng, C. Pollock","doi":"10.3138/ptc-2022-0039","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This study modified established clinical balance and walking measures and estimated the reliability, validity, and feasibility of using these measures to assess people post-stroke via videoconferencing. Twenty-eight people with chronic stroke were recruited and completed the in-person balance and mobility tests. Five clinical measures were modified as virtual assessments over videoconferencing. Feasibility was evaluated by task completion rate, occurrence of adverse events, and technical difficulties. Test–retest reliability and agreement were examined by intra-class correlations and standard error of measurement between two testing days. Convergent validity was examined by the magnitude of associations between in-person and virtual assessments using Pearson or Spearman rank correlation. Twenty-one participants (52% female) participated in both in-person and virtual assessments. No adverse events occurred. Technical challenges were experienced by eight participants. Test–retest reliability for timed up and go test, 30-seconds sit-to-stand, five-times sit-to-stand, functional reach test, and tandem stance resulted in intra-class coefficients of 0.97, 0.90, 0.77, 0.54, and 0.50 respectively. The standard error of measurement was low across all virtual assessments. The timed up and go test, five-times sit-to-stand, and 30-seconds sit-to-stand showed relationship with in-person assessments ( r = −0.55 to −0.81). Virtual assessment of walking and balance function in ambulatory people post-stroke is feasible; however, technical challenges were experienced. The test–retest reliability of virtual assessments of timed up and go test and sit-to-stand tasks for people with stroke, together with strong convergent validity of the measures compared to in-person assessments is promising.","PeriodicalId":54606,"journal":{"name":"Physiotherapy Canada","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.9000,"publicationDate":"2023-03-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Clinical Measures of Balance and Walking Ability in People with Stroke for Assessment via Videoconferencing\",\"authors\":\"Tzu-Hsuan Peng, A. Harris, A. Tang, B. Sakakibara, J. Eng, C. Pollock\",\"doi\":\"10.3138/ptc-2022-0039\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"This study modified established clinical balance and walking measures and estimated the reliability, validity, and feasibility of using these measures to assess people post-stroke via videoconferencing. Twenty-eight people with chronic stroke were recruited and completed the in-person balance and mobility tests. Five clinical measures were modified as virtual assessments over videoconferencing. Feasibility was evaluated by task completion rate, occurrence of adverse events, and technical difficulties. Test–retest reliability and agreement were examined by intra-class correlations and standard error of measurement between two testing days. Convergent validity was examined by the magnitude of associations between in-person and virtual assessments using Pearson or Spearman rank correlation. Twenty-one participants (52% female) participated in both in-person and virtual assessments. No adverse events occurred. Technical challenges were experienced by eight participants. Test–retest reliability for timed up and go test, 30-seconds sit-to-stand, five-times sit-to-stand, functional reach test, and tandem stance resulted in intra-class coefficients of 0.97, 0.90, 0.77, 0.54, and 0.50 respectively. The standard error of measurement was low across all virtual assessments. The timed up and go test, five-times sit-to-stand, and 30-seconds sit-to-stand showed relationship with in-person assessments ( r = −0.55 to −0.81). Virtual assessment of walking and balance function in ambulatory people post-stroke is feasible; however, technical challenges were experienced. The test–retest reliability of virtual assessments of timed up and go test and sit-to-stand tasks for people with stroke, together with strong convergent validity of the measures compared to in-person assessments is promising.\",\"PeriodicalId\":54606,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Physiotherapy Canada\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.9000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-03-02\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Physiotherapy Canada\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.3138/ptc-2022-0039\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"REHABILITATION\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Physiotherapy Canada","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3138/ptc-2022-0039","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"REHABILITATION","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

摘要

本研究修改了已建立的临床平衡和步行测量方法,并评估了使用这些测量方法通过视频会议评估中风后患者的可靠性、有效性和可行性。28名慢性中风患者被招募并完成了面对面的平衡和行动能力测试。五项临床指标被修改为通过视频会议进行的虚拟评估。通过任务完成率、不良事件发生率和技术难度来评估可行性。通过两个测试日之间的类内相关性和标准测量误差来检验测试-再测试的可靠性和一致性。收敛有效性通过使用Pearson或Spearman秩相关的面对面评估和虚拟评估之间的关联程度来检验。21名参与者(52%为女性)参加了面对面和虚拟评估。未发生不良事件。八名与会者经历了技术挑战。测试-对定时起身测试、30秒坐立式、5次坐立式、功能性伸展测试和串联式的重新测试可靠性得出的班内系数分别为0.97、0.90、0.77、0.54和0.50。所有虚拟评估的标准测量误差都很低。定时起身测试、5次坐-站和30秒坐-站与面对面评估呈相关关系(r=−0.55至−0.81)。脑卒中后步行和平衡功能的虚拟评估是可行的;然而,也遇到了技术挑战。与面对面评估相比,中风患者的定时测试和坐立式任务的虚拟评估的测试-再测试可靠性,以及这些测量的强大收敛有效性,都是有希望的。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Clinical Measures of Balance and Walking Ability in People with Stroke for Assessment via Videoconferencing
This study modified established clinical balance and walking measures and estimated the reliability, validity, and feasibility of using these measures to assess people post-stroke via videoconferencing. Twenty-eight people with chronic stroke were recruited and completed the in-person balance and mobility tests. Five clinical measures were modified as virtual assessments over videoconferencing. Feasibility was evaluated by task completion rate, occurrence of adverse events, and technical difficulties. Test–retest reliability and agreement were examined by intra-class correlations and standard error of measurement between two testing days. Convergent validity was examined by the magnitude of associations between in-person and virtual assessments using Pearson or Spearman rank correlation. Twenty-one participants (52% female) participated in both in-person and virtual assessments. No adverse events occurred. Technical challenges were experienced by eight participants. Test–retest reliability for timed up and go test, 30-seconds sit-to-stand, five-times sit-to-stand, functional reach test, and tandem stance resulted in intra-class coefficients of 0.97, 0.90, 0.77, 0.54, and 0.50 respectively. The standard error of measurement was low across all virtual assessments. The timed up and go test, five-times sit-to-stand, and 30-seconds sit-to-stand showed relationship with in-person assessments ( r = −0.55 to −0.81). Virtual assessment of walking and balance function in ambulatory people post-stroke is feasible; however, technical challenges were experienced. The test–retest reliability of virtual assessments of timed up and go test and sit-to-stand tasks for people with stroke, together with strong convergent validity of the measures compared to in-person assessments is promising.
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
Physiotherapy Canada
Physiotherapy Canada REHABILITATION-
CiteScore
1.90
自引率
20.00%
发文量
93
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: Physiotherapy Canada is the official, scholarly, refereed journal of the Canadian Physiotherapy Association (CPA), giving direction to excellence in clinical science and reasoning, knowledge translation, therapeutic skills and patient-centred care. Founded in 1923, Physiotherapy Canada meets the diverse needs of national and international readers and serves as a key repository of inquiries, evidence and advances in the practice of physiotherapy. Physiotherapy Canada publishes the results of qualitative and quantitative research including systematic reviews, meta analyses, meta syntheses, public/health policy research, clinical practice guidelines, and case reports. Key messages, clinical commentaries, brief reports and book reviews support knowledge translation to clinical practice. In addition to delivering authoritative, original scientific articles and reports of significant clinical studies, Physiotherapy Canada’s editorials and abstracts are presented in both English and French, expanding the journal’s reach nationally and internationally. Key messages form an integral part of each research article, providing a succinct summary for readers of all levels. This approach also allows readers to quickly get a feel for ‘what is already known’ and ‘what this study adds to’ the subject. Clinician’s commentaries for key articles assist in bridging research and practice by discussing the article’s impact at the clinical level. The journal also features special themed series which bring readers up to date research supporting evidence-informed practice. The Canadian Physiotherapy Association (CPA) is the national professional association representing almost 15,000 members distributed throughout all provinces and territories. CPA’s mission is to provide leadership and direction to the physiotherapy profession, foster excellence in practice, education and research, and promote high standards of health in Canada.
×
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
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
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 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信