Listening to the patients' voice: a conceptual framework of the walking experience

Non-pharmacological interventions targeting mobility among people with advanced cancer: a systematic review

PURPOSE

To synthesise evidence evaluating non-pharmacological interventions targeting mobility among people with advanced cancer, considering the type, efficacy and contextual factors that may influence outcome.

METHODS

Systematic review of studies of non-pharmacological interventions in adults (≥ 18 years) with advanced (stage III-IV) cancer, and assessing mobility using clinical or patient-reported outcome measures. Searches were conducted across three electronic databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE and CINAHL) up to June 2024. Methodological quality was assessed using Joanna Briggs Institute tools and contextual factors were evaluated through the Context and Implementation of Complex Interventions framework. A narrative synthesis was conducted due to clinical heterogeneity of included studies.

RESULTS

38 studies encompassing 2,464 participants were included. The most frequent mobility outcome measure was the 6-min walk test (26/38 studies). Exercise was the most common intervention, (33 studies: 27 aerobic and resistance, 5 aerobic, 1 resistance versus aerobic training) and improvements in mobility were found in 21/33 outcomes. Electrotherapy interventions led to significant improvements in mobility in 3/5 studies. Geographical factors (e.g. distance, transport, parking requirements) potentially limited participation in 18/38 studies. A lack of ethnic diversity among populations was evident and language proficiency was an inclusion criterion in 12 studies.

CONCLUSION

Exercise and neuromuscular electrical stimulation appear to improve mobility outcomes in advanced cancer. The evaluation of other non-pharmacological interventions targeting mobility should consider access and inclusivity, and be adaptable to the needs of this population.

Characterizing Walking Behaviors in Aged Residential Care Using Accelerometry, With Comparison Across Care Levels, Cognitive Status, and Physical Function: Cross-Sectional Study

Background

Walking is important for maintaining physical and mental well-being in aged residential care (ARC). Walking behaviors are not well characterized in ARC due to inconsistencies in assessment methods and metrics as well as limited research regarding the impact of care environment, cognition, or physical function on these behaviors. It is recommended that walking behaviors in ARC are assessed using validated digital methods that can capture low volumes of walking activity.

Objective

This study aims to characterize and compare accelerometry-derived walking behaviors in ARC residents across different care levels, cognitive abilities, and physical capacities.

Methods

A total of 306 ARC residents were recruited from the Staying UpRight randomized controlled trial from 3 care levels: rest home (n=164), hospital (n=117), and dementia care (n=25). Participants' cognitive status was classified as mild (n=87), moderate (n=128), or severe impairment (n=61); physical function was classified as high-moderate (n=74) and low-very low (n=222) using the Montreal Cognitive Assessment and the Short Physical Performance Battery cutoff scores, respectively. To assess walking, participants wore an accelerometer (Axivity AX3; dimensions: 23×32.5×7.6 mm; weight: 11 g; sampling rate: 100 Hz; range: ±8 g; and memory: 512 MB) on their lower back for 7 days. Outcomes included volume (ie, daily time spent walking, steps, and bouts), pattern (ie, mean walking bout duration and alpha), and variability (of bout length) of walking. Analysis of covariance was used to assess differences in walking behaviors between groups categorized by level of care, cognition, or physical function while controlling for age and sex. Tukey honest significant difference tests for multiple comparisons were used to determine where significant differences occurred. The effect sizes of group differences were calculated using Hedges g (0.2-0.4: small, 0.5-0.7: medium, and 0.8: large).

Results

Dementia care residents showed greater volumes of walking (P<.001; Hedges g=1.0-2.0), with longer (P<.001; Hedges g=0.7-0.8), more variable (P=.008 vs hospital; P<.001 vs rest home; Hedges g=0.6-0.9) bouts compared to other care levels with a lower alpha score (vs hospital: P<.001; Hedges g=0.9, vs rest home: P=.004; Hedges g=0.8). Residents with severe cognitive impairment took longer (P<.001; Hedges g=0.5-0.6), more variable (P<.001; Hedges g=0.4-0.6) bouts, compared to those with mild and moderate cognitive impairment. Residents with low-very low physical function had lower walking volumes (total walk time and bouts per day: P<.001; steps per day: P=.005; Hedges g=0.4-0.5) and higher variability (P=.04; Hedges g=0.2) compared to those with high-moderate capacity.

Conclusions

ARC residents across different levels of care, cognition, and physical function demonstrate different walking behaviors. However, ARC residents often present with varying levels of both cognitive and physical abilities, reflecting their complex multimorbid nature, which should be considered in further work. This work has demonstrated the importance of considering a nuanced framework of digital outcomes relating to volume, pattern, and variability of walking behaviors among ARC residents.

Patient-centricity in digital measure development: co-evolution of best practice and regulatory guidance

Digital health technologies (DHTs) have the potential to modernize drug development and clinical trial operations by remotely, passively, and continuously collecting ecologically valid evidence that is meaningful to patients' lived experiences. Such evidence holds potential for all drug development stakeholders, including regulatory agencies, as it will help create a stronger evidentiary link between approval of new therapeutics and the ultimate aim of improving patient lives. However, only a very small number of novel digital measures have matured from exploratory usage into regulatory qualification or efficacy endpoints. This shows that despite the clear potential, actually gaining regulatory agreement that a new measure is both fit-for-purpose and delivers value remains a serious challenge. One of the key stumbling blocks for developers has been the requirement to demonstrate that a digital measure is meaningful to patients. This viewpoint aims to examine the co-evolution of regulatory guidance in the United States (U.S.) and best practice for integration of DHTs into the development of clinical outcome assessments. Contextualizing guidance on meaningfulness within the larger shift towards a patient-centric drug development approach, this paper reviews the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) guidance and existing literature surrounding the development of meaningful digital measures and patient engagement, including the recent examples of rejections by the FDA that further emphasize patient-centricity in digital measures. Finally, this paper highlights remaining hurdles and provides insights into the established frameworks for development and adoption of digital measures in clinical research.

Real-world walking cadence in people with COPD

Introduction

The clinical validity of real-world walking cadence in people with COPD is unsettled. Our objective was to assess the levels, variability and association with clinically relevant COPD characteristics and outcomes of real-world walking cadence.

Methods

We assessed walking cadence (steps per minute during walking bouts longer than 10 s) from 7 days' accelerometer data in 593 individuals with COPD from five European countries, and clinical and functional characteristics from validated questionnaires and standardised tests. Severe exacerbations during a 12-month follow-up were recorded from patient reports and medical registries.

Results

Participants were mostly male (80%) and had mean±sd age of 68±8 years, post-bronchodilator forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV1) of 57±19% predicted and walked 6880±3926 steps·day-1. Mean walking cadence was 88±9 steps·min-1, followed a normal distribution and was highly stable within-person (intraclass correlation coefficient 0.92, 95% CI 0.90-0.93). After adjusting for age, sex, height and number of walking bouts in fractional polynomial or linear regressions, walking cadence was positively associated with FEV1, 6-min walk distance, physical activity (steps·day-1, time in moderate-to-vigorous physical activity, vector magnitude units, walking time, intensity during locomotion), physical activity experience and health-related quality of life and negatively associated with breathlessness and depression (all p<0.05). These associations remained after further adjustment for daily steps. In negative binomial regression adjusted for multiple confounders, walking cadence related to lower number of severe exacerbations during follow-up (incidence rate ratio 0.94 per step·min-1, 95% CI 0.91-0.99, p=0.009).

Conclusions

Higher real-world walking cadence is associated with better COPD status and lower severe exacerbations risk, which makes it attractive as a future prognostic marker and clinical outcome.

Evaluation of mobility recovery after hip fracture: a scoping review of randomized controlled studies

Few older adults regain their pre-fracture mobility after a hip fracture. Intervention studies evaluating effects on gait typically use short clinical tests or in-lab parameters that are often limited to gait speed only. Measurements of mobility in daily life settings exist and should be considered to a greater extent than today. Less than half of hip fracture patients regain their pre-fracture mobility. Mobility recovery is closely linked to health status and quality of life, but there is no comprehensive overview of how gait has been evaluated in intervention studies on hip fracture patients. The purpose was to identify what gait parameters have been used in randomized controlled trials to assess intervention effects on older people's mobility recovery after hip fracture. This scoping review is a secondary paper that identified relevant peer-reviewed and grey literature from 11 databases. After abstract and full-text screening, 24 papers from the original review and 8 from an updated search and manual screening were included. Records were eligible if they included gait parameters in RCTs on hip fracture patients. We included 32 papers from 29 trials (2754 unique participants). Gait parameters were primary endpoint in six studies only. Gait was predominantly evaluated as short walking, with gait speed being most frequently studied. Only five studies reported gait parameters from wearable sensors. Evidence on mobility improvement after interventions in hip fracture patients is largely limited to gait speed as assessed in a controlled setting. The transition from traditional clinical and in-lab to out-of-lab gait assessment is needed to assess effects of interventions on mobility recovery after hip fracture at higher granularity in all aspects of patients' lives, so that optimal care pathways can be defined.

Investigating the prognostic value of digital mobility outcomes in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: a systematic literature review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Reduced mobility is a central feature of COPD. Assessment of mobility outcomes that can be measured digitally (digital mobility outcomes (DMOs)) in daily life such as gait speed and steps per day is increasingly possible using devices such as pedometers and accelerometers, but the predictive value of these measures remains unclear in relation to key outcomes such as hospital admission and survival.

METHODS

We conducted a systematic review, nested within a larger scoping review by the MOBILISE-D consortium, addressing DMOs in a range of chronic conditions. Qualitative and quantitative analysis considering steps per day and gait speed and their association with clinical outcomes in COPD patients was performed.

RESULTS

21 studies (6076 participants) were included. Nine studies evaluated steps per day and 11 evaluated a measure reflecting gait speed in daily life. Negative associations were demonstrated between mortality risk and steps per day (per 1000 steps) (hazard ratio (HR) 0.81, 95% CI 0.75-0.88, p<0.001), gait speed (<0.80 m·s-1) (HR 3.55, 95% CI 1.72-7.36, p<0.001) and gait speed (per 1.0 m·s-1) (HR 7.55, 95% CI 1.11-51.3, p=0.04). Fewer steps per day (per 1000) and slow gait speed (<0.80 m·s-1) were also associated with increased healthcare utilisation (HR 0.80, 95% CI 0.72-0.88, p<0.001; OR 3.36, 95% CI 1.42-7.94, p=0.01, respectively). Available evidence was of low-moderate quality with few studies eligible for meta-analysis.

CONCLUSION

Daily step count and gait speed are negatively associated with mortality risk and other important outcomes in people with COPD and therefore may have value as prognostic indicators in clinical trials, but the quantity and quality of evidence is limited. Larger studies with consistent methodologies are called for.

Mobilizing Patient and Public Involvement in the Development of Real-World Digital Technology Solutions: Tutorial

Although the value of patient and public involvement and engagement (PPIE) activities in the development of new interventions and tools is well known, little guidance exists on how to perform these activities in a meaningful way. This is particularly true within large research consortia that target multiple objectives, include multiple patient groups, and work across many countries. Without clear guidance, there is a risk that PPIE may not capture patient opinions and needs correctly, thereby reducing the usefulness and effectiveness of new tools. Mobilise-D is an example of a large research consortium that aims to develop new digital outcome measures for real-world walking in 4 patient cohorts. Mobility is an important indicator of physical health. As such, there is potential clinical value in being able to accurately measure a person's mobility in their daily life environment to help researchers and clinicians better track changes and patterns in a person's daily life and activities. To achieve this, there is a need to create new ways of measuring walking. Recent advancements in digital technology help researchers meet this need. However, before any new measure can be used, researchers, health care professionals, and regulators need to know that the digital method is accurate and both accepted by and produces meaningful outcomes for patients and clinicians. Therefore, this paper outlines how PPIE structures were developed in the Mobilise-D consortium, providing details about the steps taken to implement PPIE, the experiences PPIE contributors had within this process, the lessons learned from the experiences, and recommendations for others who may want to do similar work in the future. The work outlined in this paper provided the Mobilise-D consortium with a foundation from which future PPIE tasks can be created and managed with clearly defined collaboration between researchers and patient representatives across Europe. This paper provides guidance on the work required to set up PPIE structures within a large consortium to promote and support the creation of meaningful and efficient PPIE related to the development of digital mobility outcomes.

Reverse Engineering of Digital Measures: Inviting Patients to the Conversation

Background

Digital measures offer an unparalleled opportunity to create a more holistic picture of how people who are patients behave in their real-world environments, thereby establishing a better connection between patients, caregivers, and the clinical evidence used to drive drug development and disease management. Reaching this vision will require achieving a new level of co-creation between the stakeholders who design, develop, use, and make decisions using evidence from digital measures.

Summary

In September 2022, the second in a series of meetings hosted by the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology in Zürich, the Foundation for the National Institutes of Health Biomarkers Consortium, and sponsored by Wellcome Trust, entitled "Reverse Engineering of Digital Measures," was held in Zurich, Switzerland, with a broad range of stakeholders sharing their experience across four case studies to examine how patient centricity is essential in shaping development and validation of digital evidence generation tools.

Key Messages

In this paper, we discuss progress and the remaining barriers to widespread use of digital measures for evidence generation in clinical development and care delivery. We also present key discussion points and takeaways in order to continue discourse and provide a basis for dissemination and outreach to the wider community and other stakeholders. The work presented here shows us a blueprint for how and why the patient voice can be thoughtfully integrated into digital measure development and that continued multistakeholder engagement is critical for further progress.