PTOTCohortArchives of rehabilitation research and clinical translation2022

Comparison of Self-Reported vs Objective Measures of Long-Term Community Ambulation in Lower Limb Prosthesis Users.

Bradeigh Godfrey, Christopher Duncan, Teri Rosenbaum-Chou

PMID 36123988

WHAT IT FOUND

Self-reported changes in walking ability do not match objective step counts for prosthesis users.

Clinicians cannot rely on patient recall of weekly mobility changes to detect functional decline or improvement, as these subjective reports correlate poorly with actual walking data.

Key findings

01There were very weak associations between self-reported changes in mobility and objective changes in walking metrics.

02Some patients reported wide variations in perceived mobility while their objective walking metrics remained stable.

03Other patients reported only small decreases in function despite substantial drops in their actual step counts.

STILL TO COME

How it was doneWhat they foundWhat it means for PTsWhat it means for OTs

Read the rest of this summary

You get three full summaries a month, free, and we do not ask for a card. Search, the TL;DRs and your library stay unlimited either way.

Already have one?

What it does not show

The sample was predominantly male (92%) and had higher functional levels (K-levels 3 and 4), which may limit generalizability to female patients or those with lower baseline function. Patients had to recall their mobility from the previous week, which some found difficult; daily logs might have provided different results. The study analyzed available data, so not all participants provided the full 24 weeks of monitoring.

Declared interests

The StepWatch Activity Monitor was provided by Modus Health. The authors received funding from the Congressionally Directed Medical Research Program and the Department of Veterans Affairs.

The easy way to misread this

Do not conclude that objective walking metrics are useless because they don't match patient reports. The metrics correlated strongly with clinical K-levels (r=0.78), meaning they are valid measures of function; they just do not track the same thing as the patient's subjective perception of weekly change.

Read it on PubMed →