Improving Exercise Performance with an Accelerometer-Based Smartphone App: A Randomized Controlled Trial

Mobile health technologies to improve walking distance in people with intermittent claudication

BACKGROUND

Peripheral arterial disease (PAD) is the obstruction or narrowing of the large arteries of the lower limbs, which can result in impaired oxygen supply to the muscle and other tissues during exercise, or even at rest in more severe cases. PAD is classified into five categories (Fontaine classification). It may be asymptomatic or various levels of claudication pain may be present; at a later stage, there may be ulceration or gangrene of the limb, with amputation occasionally being required. About 20% of people with PAD suffer from intermittent claudication (IC), which is muscular discomfort in the lower extremities induced by exertion and relieved by rest within 10 minutes; IC causes restriction of movement in daily life. Treatment for people with IC involves addressing lifestyle risk factors. Exercise is an important part of treatment, but supervised exercise programmes for individuals with IC have low engagement levels and high attrition rates. The use of mobile technologies has been suggested as a new way to engage people with IC in walking exercise interventions. The novelty of the intervention, low cost for the user, automation, and ease of access are some of the advantages mobile health (mhealth) technologies provide that give them the potential to be effective in boosting physical activity in adults.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the benefits and harms of mobile health (mhealth) technologies to improve walking distance in people with intermittent claudication.

SEARCH METHODS

The Cochrane Vascular Information Specialist conducted systematic searches of the Cochrane Vascular Specialised Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, and CINAHL, and also searched the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (WHO ICTRP) and ClinicalTrials.gov. The most recent searches were carried out on 19 December 2022.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in people aged 18 years or over with symptomatic PAD and a clinical diagnosis of IC. We included RCTs comparing mhealth interventions to improve walking distance versus usual care (no intervention or non-exercise advice), exercise advice, or supervised exercise programmes. We excluded people with chronic limb-threatening ischaemia (Fontaine III and IV).

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard Cochrane methods. Our primary outcomes were change in absolute walking distance from baseline, change in claudication distance from baseline, amputation-free survival, revascularisation-free survival. Our secondary outcomes were major adverse cardiovascular events, major adverse limb events, above-ankle amputation, quality of life, and adverse events. We used GRADE to assess the certainty of the evidence.

MAIN RESULTS

We included four RCTs involving a total of 614 participants with a clinical diagnosis of IC. The duration of intervention of the four included RCTs ranged from 3 to 12 months. Participants were randomised to either mhealth or control (usual care or supervised exercise programme). All four studies had an unclear or high risk of bias in one or several domains. The most prevalent risk of bias was in the area of performance bias, which was rated high risk as it is not possible to blind participants and personnel in this type of trial. Based on GRADE criteria, we downgraded the certainty of the evidence to low, due to concerns about risk of bias, imprecision, and clinical inconsistency. Comparing mhealth with usual care, there was no clear evidence of an effect on absolute walking distance (mean difference 9.99 metres, 95% confidence interval (CI) -27.96 to 47.93; 2 studies, 503 participants; low-certainty evidence). None of the included studies reported on change in claudication walking distance, amputation-free survival, or revascularisation-free survival. Only one study reported on major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) and found no clear difference between groups (risk ratio 1.37, 95% CI 0.07 to 28.17; 1 study, 305 participants; low-certainty evidence). None of the included studies reported on major adverse limb events (MALE) or above-ankle amputations.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Mobile health technologies can be used to provide lifestyle interventions for people with chronic conditions, such as IC. We identified a limited number of studies that met our inclusion criteria. We found no clear difference between mhealth and usual care in improving absolute walking distance in people with IC; however, we judged the evidence to be low certainty. Larger, well-designed RCTs are needed to provide adequate statistical power to reliably evaluate the effects of mhealth technologies on walking distance in people with IC.

A smartphone application to facilitate adherence to home-based exercise after flexor tendon repair: A randomised controlled trial

OBJECTIVE

Evaluate the effect of a smartphone application on exercise adherence, range of motion and self-efficacy compared to standard rehabilitation after repair of the flexor digitorum profundus tendon.

DESIGN

Prospective multi-centre randomised controlled trial.

SETTING

Four hand surgery departments in Sweden.

SUBJECTS

A total of 101 patients (35 women) (mean age 37.5 ± 12.8) were randomised to control (n = 49) or intervention group (n = 52).

INTERVENTION

A smartphone application to facilitate rehabilitation.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Adherence assessed with the Sport Injury Rehabilitation Adherence Scale at two and six weeks (primary outcome). Secondary outcomes were self-reported adherence in three domains assessed at two and six weeks, self-efficacy assessed with Athlete Injury Self-Efficacy Questionnaire at baseline, two and six weeks. Range of motion and perceived satisfaction with rehabilitation and information were assessed at 12 weeks.

RESULTS

Twenty-five patients were lost to follow-up. There was no significant between group difference in Sport Injury Rehabilitation Adherence Scale at two or six weeks, mean scores (confidence interval, CI 95%) 12.5 (CI 11.8-13.3), 11.8 (CI 11.0-12.8) for the intervention group, and 13.3 (CI 12.6-14.0), 12.8 (CI 12.0-13.7) for the control group. Self-reported adherence for exercise frequency at six weeks was significantly better for the intervention group, 93.2 (CI 86.9-99.5) compared to the controls 82.9 (CI 76.9-88.8) (P = 0.02). There were no differences in range of motion, self-efficacy or satisfaction.

CONCLUSION

The smartphone application used in this study did not improve adherence, self-efficacy or range of motion compared to standard rehabilitation for flexor tendon injuries. Further research regarding smartphone applications is needed.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

I. Randomised controlled trial.

Accuracy and repeatability of smartphone sensors for measuring shank-to-vertical angle

BACKGROUND

Assessments of human movement are clinically important. However, accurate measurements are often unavailable due to the need for expensive equipment or intensive processing. For orthotists and therapists, shank-to-vertical angle is one critical measure used to assess gait and guide prescriptions. Smartphone-based sensors may provide a widely available platform to expand access to this measurement.

OBJECTIVES

Assess accuracy and repeatability of smartphone-based measurement of shank-to-vertical angle compared to marker-based 3D motion analysis.

STUDY DESIGN

Repeated-measures.

METHODS

Four licensed clinicians (two physical therapists and two orthotists) measured shank-to-vertical angle during gait with a smartphone attached to the anterior or lateral shank surface of unimpaired adults. We compared the shank-to-vertical angle calculated from the smartphone's inertial measurement unit to marker-based measurements. Each clinician completed three sessions/day on two days with each participant to assess repeatability.

RESULTS

Average absolute differences in shank-to-vertical angle measured with a smartphone versus marker-based 3D motion analysis during gait were 0.67 ± 0.25° and 4.89 ± 0.72°, with anterior or lateral smartphone positions, respectively. The inter- and intra-day repeatability of shank-to-vertical angle were within 2° for both smartphone positions.

CONCLUSIONS

Smartphone sensors can be used to measure shank-to-vertical angle with high accuracy and repeatability during unimpaired gait, providing a widely available tool for quantitative gait assessments.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

Smartphone sensors demonstrated high accuracy and repeatability for monitoring shank-to-vertical angle during gait. Measurement of shank-to-vertical angle from the front of the shank was more accurate than the side of the shank. Smartphones may expand access to quantitative assessments of gait.

Effect of smartphone application-supported self-rehabilitation for frozen shoulder: a prospective randomized control study

Objectives:

To evaluate the clinical efficacy of smartphone-assisted self-rehabilitation in patients with frozen shoulder.

Design:

A single-center, randomized controlled trial.

Setting:

Orthopedic department of a university hospital.

Subjects:

A total of 84 patients with frozen shoulder were recruited.

Intervention:

Patients were randomly divided into two groups: a smartphone-assisted exercise group ( n = 42) and a conventional self-exercise group ( n = 42). The study was performed over three months, during which each group performed home-based rehabilitation.

Main measures:

Visual analogue scale for pain and passive shoulder range of motion were assessed at baseline and after 4, 8, and 12 weeks of treatment. Technology Acceptance Model–2 and Usefulness, Satisfaction, and Ease of Use scores were evaluated in the smartphone group.

Results:

Initial visual analogue scale for pain of the smartphone group was 6.0 ± 2.2 and ended up with 1.8 ± 2.5 after 12 weeks, whereas the self-exercise group showed 5.8 ± 2.3 for the baseline visual analogue scale for pain and 2.2 ± 1.7 at the end. Significant time-dependent improvements in all measured values were observed in both groups (all Ps < 0.001), but no significant intergroup difference was observed after 4, 8, or 12 weeks of treatment. In the smartphone group, Technology Acceptance Model–2 and Usefulness, Satisfaction, and Ease of Use scores showed high patient satisfaction with smartphone-assisted exercise.

Conclusion:

There was no difference between home-based exercise using a smartphone application and a conventional self-exercise program for the treatment of frozen shoulder in terms of visual analogue scale for pain and range of motions.