Objectives The main purpose of the study was to assess the validity between the Fitbit and ActiGraph GT3X+ accelerometer. The specific aims were to determine the: (1) concurrent validity between the various models of the Fitbit and the GTX3+ accelerometer as the criterion measure for: number of steps and active minutes averaged over a single-day and 7-day period; (2) validity of the two devices with the International Physical Activity Questionnaire (IPAQ) for the number of daily active minutes performed. Methods Fifty-three subjects wore a Fitbit and ActiGraph concurrently for 7 days. Data were analysed using correlation coefficients, t-tests to assess mean comparisons and Bland-Altman plots to determine agreement between the Fitbit and the ActiGraph. Results The correlations between the Fitbit and ActiGraph for steps per day and per 7 days were r=0.862 and 0.820, respectively with significant mean differences between both devices. Bland-Altman analyses revealed agreement between the Fitbit and the ActiGraph for 7-day active minutes only. The correlations between the Fitbit and ActiGraph for active minutes per day and per 7 days were r=0.695 and r=0.658, respectively, with no significant mean differences between both devices. No significant correlations were found between the IPAQ and the other two devices. Conclusions The data produced by the Fitbit were consistent with the ActiGraph when the means of each device were compared over the 1-day and 7-day time periods. However, Bland-Altman analyses revealed that the Fitbit agreed with the ActiGraph when used to measure physical activity levels over a 7-day span only.

The treatment of patients with knee osteoarthritis is typically focused on the involved lower extremity. There is a gap in the literature concerning the effectiveness of core stabilization training on the treatment of patients with knee osteoarthritis. This investigation aimed to determine whether core stabilization improved the gait and functional ability of patients with knee osteoarthritis. Eighteen participants with knee osteoarthritis completed the six-week core stabilization intervention. Participants completed the gait motion analysis and the Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score to assess self-perceived function, pre- and post-intervention. Gait speed improved (p = 0.006, d = 0.59), while the external knee adduction moment decreased (p = 0.034, d = −0.90). Moreover, self-reported function improved (p < 0.001, d = 1.26). The gait speed and external knee adduction moment changes met minimal detectable change thresholds, while gait speed also met the minimal clinically important difference. A six-week core stabilization program can thus improve gait speed and reduce the external knee adduction moment, which is tied to disease progression. Increased functional scores post-intervention indicate an important clinical improvement. Core stabilization training is a safe and potentially effective treatment option for this population.

Knee osteoarthritis impairs patients’ ability to function normally, specifically impacting their ability to walk without limitation. Research in other populations at risk for knee injury, including...

Parkinson’s disease (PD) is a complex disorder marked with non-motor and motor impairments, including gait abnormalities and postural instability. As a result of balance dysfunction and postural in...

Physical therapists (PTs) work in a variety of healthcare settings with varied levels of physical activity demands placed on them. The purpose of this study is to compare the physical activity (PA) levels between PTs in inpatient versus outpatient environments for one work week using a cross-sectional design. Sixty-one PTs (30 inpatient, 31 outpatient) wore a tri-axial accelerometer and inclinometer for one work-week. The number steps-per-day, PA intensities, energy expenditures and postural positions adopted during the work day were recorded. Significantly longer amounts of time spent sitting was found for inpatient PTs regardless of the significantly higher number of steps-per-day. Outpatient PTs had a higher number of breaks from sedentary activity with those breaks being longer than the inpatient PTs. The percentage of time spent performing moderate-vigorous PA approached significance implying more time was spent performing these types of activities for outpatient PTs. The energy expenditures between the two groups of PTs were not different. This study compared the differences in physical activity levels between physical therapists who worked at inpatient versus outpatient environment as little is known about their activity levels. Inpatient physical therapists took more steps per day than outpatient physical therapists but the outpatient physical therapists were less sedentary and took more frequent and longer breaks from sedentary activities. The energy expenditures were similar between both types of therapists and this may be reflective of the gender and bodyweight differences between the groups that equalizes the energy expenditures. The findings of this study suggests that there are differences in the physical activity demands between inpatient and outpatient physical therapists. The results of this study may serve dual purposes: (1) employers may be able to more accurately describe the expected physical activity demands to future employees; (2) individuals tasked with preparing PTs to physically manage their work environment can outline training programs that are diverse based on the specific work environment of PTs.

Background: A pilot study was conducted to quantify the effect size of changes in physical activity after of one session of physical therapy for individuals with chronic low back pain and to determine factors that predict daily sedentary activity time. Methods: Fourteen subjects with at least 3 days of physical activity accelerometer data were analyzed before and after one session of physical therapy. Data was analyzed using 1-tailed, paired t-tests with level of significance set at 0.05. Effect sizes were computed using the baseline and post intervention mean differences divided by the baseline and post-intervention differences in the standard deviation. Results: A nonsignificant reduction in steps-per-day and time spent performing sedentary activities, with increases in light and moderate–vigorous physical activity were found (effect size: 0.15–0.33). A nonsignificant decrease in daily sitting and standing time 1 week immediately following the physical therapy session and an increase in daily lying time (p = 0.03) (effect size: 0.23–0.69) were found. Conclusion: One physical therapy session resulted in a small physical activity change for individuals with chronic low back pain. Baseline and post intervention levels of pain catastrophisation and perceptions of disability need to be explored in future studies to determine if these are factors that influence levels of physical activity change for these individuals Results are limited by the small sample size, however the ability to increase physical activity in this population may be of clinical relevance. Trial Registration NCT02823756; June 30, 2016: Retrospectively Registered