Counting Steps in Institutionalized Older Adults During Daily Life Activities: The Validation of Two Motion Sensors

Abstract

The primary purpose of this study was to assess the validity of two motion sensors in measuring steps in institutionalized older adults during daily life activities. Sixty-eight nursing home residents (85.8 ± 5.6 years) were equipped with a hip-worn and ankle-worn piezoelectric pedometer (New Lifestyles 2000) and with an arm-mounted multisensor (SenseWear Mini). An investigator with a hand counter tallied the actual steps. The results revealed that the multisensor and hip- and ankle-worn pedometer significantly underestimated step counts (89.6 ± 17.2%, 72.9 ± 25.8%, and 20.8 ± 24.6%, respectively). Walking speed accounted for 41.6% of the variance in percent error of the ankle-worn pedometer. The threshold value for accurate step counting was set at 2.35 km/hr, providing percent error scores within ± 5%. The ankle-worn piezoelectric pedometer can be useful for accurate quantification of walking steps in the old and old-old (≥ 85 years) walking faster than 2.35 km/hr.

Is knee extension strength a better predictor of functional performance than handgrip strength among older adults in three different settings?

“…These five studies included one validation study and four interventions studies in older adults, of which only the pretest data were included in these analyses (Martien, Delecluse, Seghers, & Boen, 2014;Pelssers et al, 2013;Van Hoecke, Delecluse, Bogaerts, & Boen, 2013;Van Roie, Delecluse, Coudyzer, Boonen, & Bautmans, 2013). Participants gave written informed consent and all procedures were approved by the human Ethics Committee of KU Leuven.…”

Step Count in Patients With Lumbar Spinal Stenosis

“…Efforts have been made to ensure that the developed method is as relevant as possible for step count in patients with LSS, including a well-described and broad-ranged patient population representing both surgical and nonsurgical candidates. 56 It is, however, still applicable only to patients from secondary care, and patients were not invited consecutively, but according to age and walking capacity to challenge the method in areas previously seen as difficult concerning step count; 37,39,43,44 thus the method could provide skewed results in a representative LSS population.…”

“…32 The accuracy of step count by wearable sensors has been evaluated among age-matched healthy individuals. [33][34][35][36][37][38] It has been shown that the use of walking aids 33,34,36,[39][40][41][42] and slow walking speed 37,39,43,44 may impede step detection. The literature points to devices placed distally on lower extremities as more robust at detecting steps.…”

“…The literature points to devices placed distally on lower extremities as more robust at detecting steps. 34,36,40,41,43,44 A few studies show improved step detection with methods explicitly developed for identifying steps using accelerometer data from older adults. 45,46 But it should be taken into account that accelerometers distally placed can be a source of incorrect step count as steps could be falsely detected during nonwalking activities.…”

“…It has been shown that the use of walking aids33,34,36,39–42 and slow walking speed37,39,43,44 may impede step detection. The literature points to devices placed distally on lower extremities as more robust at detecting steps 34,36,40,41,43,44. A few studies show improved step detection with methods explicitly developed for identifying steps using accelerometer data from older adults 45,46.…”