Walking on common ground: a cross-disciplinary scoping review on the clinical utility of digital mobility outcomes

Mobilise-D, Ashley Polhemus, Laura Delgado Ortiz, Gavin Brittain, Nikolaos Chynkiamis, Francesca Salis, Heiko Gaßner, Michaela Gross, Cameron Kirk, Rachele Rossanigo, Kristin Taraldsen, Diletta Balta, Sofie Breuls, Sara Buttery, Gabriela Cardenas, Christoph Endress, Julia Gugenhan, Alison Keogh, Felix Kluge, Sarah KochM Encarna Micó-Amigo, Corinna Nerz, Chloé Sieber, Parris Williams, Ronny Bergquist, Magda Bosch de Basea, Ellen Buckley, Clint Hansen, A Stefanie Mikolaizak, Lars Schwickert, Kirsty Scott, Sabine Stallforth, Janet van Uem, Beatrix Vereijken, Andrea Cereatti, Heleen Demeyer, Nicholas Hopkinson, Walter Maetzler, Thierry Troosters, Ioannis Vogiatzis, Alison Yarnall, Clemens Becker, Judith Garcia-Aymerich, Letizia Leocani, Claudia Mazzà, Lynn Rochester, Basil Sharrack, Anja Frei, Milo Puhan

Research output: Contribution to journalReview articlepeer-review

Abstract

Physical mobility is essential to health, and patients often rate it as a high-priority clinical outcome. Digital mobility outcomes (DMOs), such as real-world gait speed or step count, show promise as clinical measures in many medical conditions. However, current research is nascent and fragmented by discipline. This scoping review maps existing evidence on the clinical utility of DMOs, identifying commonalities across traditional disciplinary divides. In November 2019, 11 databases were searched for records investigating the validity and responsiveness of 34 DMOs in four diverse medical conditions (Parkinson's disease, multiple sclerosis, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, hip fracture). Searches yielded 19,672 unique records. After screening, 855 records representing 775 studies were included and charted in systematic maps. Studies frequently investigated gait speed (70.4% of studies), step length (30.7%), cadence (21.4%), and daily step count (20.7%). They studied differences between healthy and pathological gait (36.4%), associations between DMOs and clinical measures (48.8%) or outcomes (4.3%), and responsiveness to interventions (26.8%). Gait speed, step length, cadence, step time and step count exhibited consistent evidence of validity and responsiveness in multiple conditions, although the evidence was inconsistent or lacking for other DMOs. If DMOs are to be adopted as mainstream tools, further work is needed to establish their predictive validity, responsiveness, and ecological validity. Cross-disciplinary efforts to align methodology and validate DMOs may facilitate their adoption into clinical practice.

Original languageEnglish
Article number149
Number of pages14
Journalnpj Digital Medicine
Volume4
Issue number1
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 14 Oct 2021

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of 'Walking on common ground: a cross-disciplinary scoping review on the clinical utility of digital mobility outcomes'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this