Mobility levels of acute medical patients: Is behavioural mapping comparable to accelerometry?
Saved in:
| Title: | Mobility levels of acute medical patients: Is behavioural mapping comparable to accelerometry? |
|---|---|
| Authors: | Wu, Yizhou, Smits, Esther J, Window, Peter, Beningfield, Alice, Johnston, Venerina, McRae, Prue |
| Source: | Clinical Rehabilitation. Apr2021, Vol. 35 Issue 4, p595-605. 11p. |
| Subjects: | Hospital patients, Scientific observation, Cross-sectional method, Behavior, Tertiary care, Accelerometry, Physical mobility, Critical care medicine, Descriptive statistics, Data analysis software, Acute diseases |
| Geographic Terms: | Australia |
| Abstract: | Objective: To (1) determine agreement between behavioural mapping and accelerometry for measuring mobility levels in an acute medical inpatient setting and to (2) explore and compare the required resources and costs for both methods. Design: Observational cross-sectional study Setting: Tertiary referral teaching hospital in Brisbane, Australia. Subjects: Adult patients admitted to two acute medical wards. Main measures: Mobility levels were recorded by behavioural mapping, and thigh and chest-worn accelerometers (ActivPAL). The level of agreement between the two methods was evaluated using the Intraclass Correlation Coefficients for each mobility level (i.e. lying, sitting, upright, standing and walking). Results: Nineteen patients (10 male (53%); mean(SD) age of 72(14) years) were included in the agreement analysis. The Intraclass Correlation Coefficients were high for 'lying' (ICC = 0.87), 'sitting' (ICC = 0.84) and 'upright' (ICC = 0.93), indicating good to excellent agreement between the two methods. For these mobility levels, mean differences between the two methods were small (<2%), with large standard deviations (up to 18%). Agreement was poor for 'standing' (ICC = 0.00) and 'walking' (ICC = 0.35). Both methods were labour-intensive, with labour costs of A$1,285/€798 (34 hours) for behavioural mapping and A$1,055/€655 (28 hours) for accelerometry. No further costs were involved in behavioural mapping, but clinical backfill was required. Accelerometry involved a financial investment for accelerometers (A$11,100/€6,894 for 22 ActivPAL devices). Conclusion: Agreement between behavioural mapping and accelerometry was good for measuring 'lying', 'sitting' and 'upright', but poor for 'standing' and 'walking' in an acute inpatient setting. Both behavioural mapping and accelerometry were labour-intensive, with high costs for the accelerometry equipment. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR] |
| Copyright of Clinical Rehabilitation is the property of Sage Publications Inc. and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites without the copyright holder's express written permission. Additionally, content may not be used with any artificial intelligence tools or machine learning technologies. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.) | |
| Database: | Psychology and Behavioral Sciences Collection |
|
Full text is not displayed to guests.
Login for full access.
|
|
| Abstract: | Objective: To (1) determine agreement between behavioural mapping and accelerometry for measuring mobility levels in an acute medical inpatient setting and to (2) explore and compare the required resources and costs for both methods. Design: Observational cross-sectional study Setting: Tertiary referral teaching hospital in Brisbane, Australia. Subjects: Adult patients admitted to two acute medical wards. Main measures: Mobility levels were recorded by behavioural mapping, and thigh and chest-worn accelerometers (ActivPAL). The level of agreement between the two methods was evaluated using the Intraclass Correlation Coefficients for each mobility level (i.e. lying, sitting, upright, standing and walking). Results: Nineteen patients (10 male (53%); mean(SD) age of 72(14) years) were included in the agreement analysis. The Intraclass Correlation Coefficients were high for 'lying' (ICC = 0.87), 'sitting' (ICC = 0.84) and 'upright' (ICC = 0.93), indicating good to excellent agreement between the two methods. For these mobility levels, mean differences between the two methods were small (<2%), with large standard deviations (up to 18%). Agreement was poor for 'standing' (ICC = 0.00) and 'walking' (ICC = 0.35). Both methods were labour-intensive, with labour costs of A$1,285/€798 (34 hours) for behavioural mapping and A$1,055/€655 (28 hours) for accelerometry. No further costs were involved in behavioural mapping, but clinical backfill was required. Accelerometry involved a financial investment for accelerometers (A$11,100/€6,894 for 22 ActivPAL devices). Conclusion: Agreement between behavioural mapping and accelerometry was good for measuring 'lying', 'sitting' and 'upright', but poor for 'standing' and 'walking' in an acute inpatient setting. Both behavioural mapping and accelerometry were labour-intensive, with high costs for the accelerometry equipment. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR] |
|---|---|
| ISSN: | 02692155 |
| DOI: | 10.1177/0269215520970341 |
