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.

IntroductionThe European population is rapidly ageing. In order to handle substantial future challenges in the healthcare system, we need to shift focus from treatment towards health promotion. The PreventIT project has adapted the Lifestyle-integrated Exercise (LiFE) programme and developed an intervention for healthy young older adults at risk of accelerated functional decline. The intervention targets balance, muscle strength and physical activity, and is delivered either via a smartphone application (enhanced LiFE, eLiFE) or by use of paper manuals (adapted LiFE, aLiFE).Methods and analysisThe PreventIT study is a multicentre, three-armed feasibility randomised controlled trial, comparing eLiFE and aLiFE against a control group that receives international guidelines of physical activity. It is performed in three European cities in Norway, Germany, and The Netherlands. The primary objective is to assess the feasibility and usability of the interventions, and to assess changes in daily life function as measured by the Late-Life Function and Disability Instrument scale and a physical behaviour complexity metric. Participants are assessed at baseline, after the 6 months intervention period and at 1 year after randomisation. Men and women between 61 and 70 years of age are randomly drawn from regional registries and respondents screened for risk of functional decline to recruit and randomise 180 participants (60 participants per study arm).Ethics and disseminationEthical approval was received at all three trial sites. Baseline results are intended to be published by late 2018, with final study findings expected in early 2019. Subgroup and further in-depth analyses will subsequently be published.Trial registration numberNCT03065088; Pre-results.

<b><i>Background:</i></b> The Lifestyle-integrated Functional Exercise (LiFE) program is an intervention integrating balance and strength activities into daily life, effective at reducing falls in at-risk people ≥70 years. There is potential for LiFE to be adapted to young seniors in order to prevent age-related functional decline. <b><i>Objective:</i></b> We aimed to (1) develop an intervention by adapting Lifestyle-integrated Functional Exercise (aLiFE) to be more challenging and suitable for preventing functional decline in young seniors in their 60s and (2) perform an initial feasibility evaluation of the program. Pre-post changes in balance, mobility, and physical activity (PA) were also explored. <b><i>Methods:</i></b> Based on a conceptual framework, a multidisciplinary expert group developed an initial aLiFE version, including activities for improving strength, neuromotor performances, and PA. Proof-of-concept was evaluated in a 4-week pre-post intervention study measuring (1) feasibility including adherence, frequency of practice, adverse events, acceptability (i.e., perceived helpfulness, adaptability, level of difficulty of single activities), and safety, and (2) changes in balance/mobility (Community Balance and Mobility Scale) and PA (1 week activity monitoring). The program was refined based on the study results. <b><i>Results:</i></b> To test the initial aLiFE version, 31 young seniors were enrolled and 30 completed the study (mean age 66.4 ± 2.7 years, 60% women). Of a maximum possible 16 activities, participants implemented on average 12.1 ± 1.8 activities during the intervention, corresponding to mean adherence of 76%. Implemented activities were practiced 3.6–6.1 days/week and 1.8–7.8 times/day, depending on the activity type. One noninjurious fall occurred during practice, although the participant continued the intervention. The majority found the activities helpful, adaptable to individual lifestyle, appropriately difficult, and safe. CMBS score increased with medium effect size (d = 0.72, <i>p</i> = 0.001). Increase in daily walking time (d = 0.36) and decrease in sedentary time (d = –0.10) were nonsignificant. Refinements included further increasing the task challenge of some strength activities and defining the most preferred activities in the trainer’s manual to facilitate uptake of the program. <b><i>Conclusion:</i></b> aLiFE has the potential to engage young seniors in regular lifestyle-integrated activities. Effectiveness needs to be evaluated in a randomized controlled trial.

Previous studies indicate that elastic resistance bands (ERB) can be a viable option to conventional resistance-training equipment (CRE) during single-joint resistance exercises, but their efficacy has not been established for several commonly used multiple-joint resistance exercises. Thus, we compared muscular activation levels in four popular multiple-joint exercises performed with ERB (TheraBand) vs. CRE (Olympic barbell or cable pulley machines). In a cross-over design, men and women (n = 29) performed squats, stiff-legged deadlifts, unilateral rows and lateral pulldown using both modalities. Multilevel mixed-effects linear regression analyses of main and interaction effects, and subsequent post hoc analyses were used to assess differences between the two resistance-training modalities. CRE induced higher levels of muscle activation in the prime movers during all exercises (p < .001 for all comparisons), compared to muscle activation levels induced by ERB. The magnitude of the differences was marginal in lateral pulldown and unilateral rows and for the erector spinae during stiff-legged deadlifts. In squats the quadriceps femoris activations were substantially lower for ERB. The differences between ERB and CRE were mostly observed during the parts of the contractions where the bands were relatively slack, whilst the differences were largely eliminated when the bands became elongated in the end ranges of the movements. We conclude that ERB can be a feasible training modality for lateral pulldowns, unilateral rows and to some extent stiff-legged deadlifts, but not for the squat exercise.

IntroductionAdvances in wearable sensor technology now enable frequent, objective monitoring of real-world walking. Walking-related digital mobility outcomes (DMOs), such as real-world walking speed, have the potential to be more sensitive to mobility changes than traditional clinical assessments. However, it is not yet clear which DMOs are most suitable for formal validation. In this review, we will explore the evidence on discriminant ability, construct validity, prognostic value and responsiveness of walking-related DMOs in four disease areas: Parkinson’s disease, multiple sclerosis, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and proximal femoral fracture.Methods and analysisArksey and O’Malley’s methodological framework for scoping reviews will guide study conduct. We will search seven databases (Medline, CINAHL, Scopus, Web of Science, EMBASE, IEEE Digital Library and Cochrane Library) and grey literature for studies which (1) measure differences in DMOs between healthy and pathological walking, (2) assess relationships between DMOs and traditional clinical measures, (3) assess the prognostic value of DMOs and (4) use DMOs as endpoints in interventional clinical trials. Two reviewers will screen each abstract and full-text manuscript according to predefined eligibility criteria. We will then chart extracted data, map the literature, perform a narrative synthesis and identify gaps.Ethics and disseminationAs this review is limited to publicly available materials, it does not require ethical approval. This work is part of Mobilise-D, an Innovative Medicines Initiative Joint Undertaking which aims to deliver, validate and obtain regulatory approval for DMOs. Results will be shared with the scientific community and general public in cooperation with the Mobilise-D communication team.RegistrationStudy materials and updates will be made available through the Center for Open Science’s OSFRegistry (https://osf.io/k7395).