Digitally enabled aged care and neurological rehabilitation to enhance outcomes with Activity and MObility UsiNg Technology (AMOUNT) in Australia: A randomised controlled trial

Autoři: Leanne Hassett aff001;  Maayken van den Berg aff003;  Richard I. Lindley aff005;  Maria Crotty aff003;  Annie McCluskey aff002;  Hidde P. van der Ploeg aff007;  Stuart T. Smith aff009;  Karl Schurr aff006;  Kirsten Howard aff008;  Maree L. Hackett aff010;  Maggie Killington aff003;  Bert Bongers aff012;  Leanne Togher aff002;  Daniel Treacy aff001;  Simone Dorsch aff006;  Siobhan Wong aff001;  Katharine Scrivener aff006;  Sakina Chagpar aff001;  Heather Weber aff003;  Marina Pinheiro aff001;  Stephane Heritier aff018;  Catherine Sherrington aff001
Působiště autorů: Institute for Musculoskeletal Health, Faculty of Medicine and Health, University of Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia aff001;  School of Health Sciences, Faculty of Medicine and Health, University of Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia aff002;  Rehabilitation, Aged and Extended Care, College of Medicine and Public Health, Flinders University, Adelaide, South Australia, Australia aff003;  Clinical Rehabilitation, College of Nursing and Health Sciences, Flinders University, Adelaide, South Australia, Australia aff004;  Westmead Clinical School, Faculty of Medicine and Health, University of Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia aff005;  StrokeEd Collaboration, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia aff006;  Department of Public & Occupational Health, Amsterdam Public Health Research Institute, Amsterdam UMC, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam, Netherlands aff007;  School of Public Health, Faculty of Medicine and Health, University of Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia aff008;  School of Health and Human Sciences, Southern Cross University, Coffs Harbour, New South Wales, Australia aff009;  The George Institute for Global Health, Faculty of Medicine, University of New South Wales, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia aff010;  Faculty of Health and Wellbeing, University of Central Lancashire, Preston, United Kingdom aff011;  Faculty of Design, Architecture and Building, University of Technology Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia aff012;  Physiotherapy Department, Prince of Wales Hospital, South Eastern Sydney Local Health District, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia aff013;  Physiotherapy Department and Department of Aged Care and Rehabilitation, Bankstown-Lidcombe Hospital, South Western Sydney Local Health District, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia aff014;  School of Physiotherapy, Faculty of Health Sciences, Australian Catholic University, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia aff015;  Physiotherapy Department and Brain Injury Rehabilitation Unit, Liverpool Hospital, South Western Sydney Local Health District, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia aff016;  Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, Macquarie University, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia aff017;  Department of Epidemiology and Preventive Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, Nursing and Health Sciences, Monash University, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia aff018
Vyšlo v časopise: Digitally enabled aged care and neurological rehabilitation to enhance outcomes with Activity and MObility UsiNg Technology (AMOUNT) in Australia: A randomised controlled trial. PLoS Med 17(2): e1003029. doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.1003029
Kategorie: Research Article
doi: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1003029



Digitally enabled rehabilitation may lead to better outcomes but has not been tested in large pragmatic trials. We aimed to evaluate a tailored prescription of affordable digital devices in addition to usual care for people with mobility limitations admitted to aged care and neurological rehabilitation.

Methods and findings

We conducted a pragmatic, outcome-assessor-blinded, parallel-group randomised trial in 3 Australian hospitals in Sydney and Adelaide recruiting adults 18 to 101 years old with mobility limitations undertaking aged care and neurological inpatient rehabilitation. Both the intervention and control groups received usual multidisciplinary inpatient and post-hospital rehabilitation care as determined by the treating rehabilitation clinicians. In addition to usual care, the intervention group used devices to target mobility and physical activity problems, individually prescribed by a physiotherapist according to an intervention protocol, including virtual reality video games, activity monitors, and handheld computer devices for 6 months in hospital and at home. Co-primary outcomes were mobility (performance-based Short Physical Performance Battery [SPPB]; continuous version; range 0 to 3; higher score indicates better mobility) and upright time as a proxy measure of physical activity (proportion of the day upright measured with activPAL) at 6 months. The dataset was analysed using intention-to-treat principles. The trial was prospectively registered with the Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry (ACTRN12614000936628). Between 22 September 2014 and 10 November 2016, 300 patients (mean age 74 years, SD 14; 50% female; 54% neurological condition causing activity limitation) were randomly assigned to intervention (n = 149) or control (n = 151) using a secure online database (REDCap) to achieve allocation concealment. Six-month assessments were completed by 258 participants (129 intervention, 129 control). Intervention participants received on average 12 (SD 11) supervised inpatient sessions using 4 (SD 1) different devices and 15 (SD 5) physiotherapy contacts supporting device use after hospital discharge. Changes in mobility scores were higher in the intervention group compared to the control group from baseline (SPPB [continuous, 0–3] mean [SD]: intervention group, 1.5 [0.7]; control group, 1.5 [0.8]) to 6 months (SPPB [continuous, 0–3] mean [SD]: intervention group, 2.3 [0.6]; control group, 2.1 [0.8]; mean between-group difference 0.2 points, 95% CI 0.1 to 0.3; p = 0.006). However, there was no evidence of a difference between groups for upright time at 6 months (mean [SD] proportion of the day spent upright at 6 months: intervention group, 18.2 [9.8]; control group, 18.4 [10.2]; mean between-group difference −0.2, 95% CI −2.7 to 2.3; p = 0.87). Scores were higher in the intervention group compared to the control group across most secondary mobility outcomes, but there was no evidence of a difference between groups for most other secondary outcomes including self-reported balance confidence and quality of life. No adverse events were reported in the intervention group. Thirteen participants died while in the trial (intervention group: 9; control group: 4) due to unrelated causes, and there was no evidence of a difference between groups in fall rates (unadjusted incidence rate ratio 1.19, 95% CI 0.78 to 1.83; p = 0.43). Study limitations include 15%–19% loss to follow-up at 6 months on the co-primary outcomes, as anticipated; the number of secondary outcome measures in our trial, which may increase the risk of a type I error; and potential low statistical power to demonstrate significant between-group differences on important secondary patient-reported outcomes.


In this study, we observed improved mobility in people with a wide range of health conditions making use of digitally enabled rehabilitation, whereas time spent upright was not impacted.

Trial registration

The trial was prospectively registered with the Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Register; ACTRN12614000936628

Klíčová slova:

Consumer electronics – Inpatients – Measurement equipment – Medical devices and equipment – Neurorehabilitation – Physical activity – Rehabilitation medicine – Virtual reality


1. Chatterji S, Byles J, Cutler D, Seeman T, Verdes E. Health, functioning and disability in older adults—current status and future implications. Lancet. 2015;385(9967):563–75. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(14)61462-8 25468158

2. Ma VY, Chan L, Carruthers KJ. Incidence, prevalence, costs, and impact on disability of common conditions requiring rehabilitation in the United States: stroke, spinal cord injury, traumatic brain injury, multiple sclerosis, osteoarthritis, rheumatoid arthritis, limb loss, and back pain. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2014;95(5):986–95.e1.

3. Chodzko-Zajko WJ, Proctor DN, Fiatarone Singh MA, Minson CT, Nigg CR, Salem GJ, et al. American College of Sports Medicine position stand. Exercise and physical activity for older adults. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2009;41(7):1510–30. doi: 10.1249/MSS.0b013e3181a0c95c 19516148

4. Schneider EJ, Lannin NA, Ada L, Schmidt J. Increasing the amount of usual rehabilitation improves activity after stroke: a systematic review. J Physiother. 2016;62(4):182–7. doi: 10.1016/j.jphys.2016.08.006 27637769

5. Veerbeek JM, van Wegen E, van Peppen R, van der Wees PJ, Hendriks E, Rietberg M, et al. What is the evidence for physical therapy poststroke? A systematic review and meta-analysis. PLoS ONE. 2014;9(2):e87987. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0087987 24505342

6. Sherrington C, Michaleff ZA, Fairhall N, Paul SS, Tiedemann A, Whitney J, et al. Exercise to prevent falls in older adults: an updated systematic review and meta-analysis. Br J Sports Med. 2017;51(24):1750–8. doi: 10.1136/bjsports-2016-096547 27707740

7. Olivetti L, Schurr K, Sherrington C, Wallbank G, Pamphlett P, Kwan MM, et al. A novel weight-bearing strengthening program during rehabilitation of older people is feasible and improves standing up more than a non-weight-bearing strengthening program: a randomised trial. J Physiother. 2007;53(3):147–53.

8. Lewis GN, Rosie JA. Virtual reality games for movement rehabilitation in neurological conditions: how do we meet the needs and expectations of the users? Disabil Rehabil. 2012;34(22):1880–6. doi: 10.3109/09638288.2012.670036 22480353

9. Betker AL, Desai A, Nett C, Kapadia N, Szturm T. Game-based exercises for dynamic short-sitting balance rehabilitation of people with chronic spinal cord and traumatic brain injuries. Phys Ther. 2007;87(10):1389–98. doi: 10.2522/ptj.20060229 17712036

10. Allen NE, Song J, Paul SS, Smith S, O’Duffy J, Schmidt M, et al. An interactive videogame for arm and hand exercise in people with Parkinson’s disease: a randomized controlled trial. Parkinsonism Relat Disord. 2017;41:66–72. doi: 10.1016/j.parkreldis.2017.05.011 28528804

11. Laver KE, Lange B, George S, Deutsch JE, Saposnik G, Crotty M. Virtual reality for stroke rehabilitation. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2017;11:CD008349. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD008349.pub4 29156493

12. Lynch EA, Jones TM, Simpson DB, Fini NA, Kuys SS, Borschmann K, et al. Activity monitors for increasing physical activity in adult stroke survivors. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2018;7:CD012543. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD012543.pub2 30051462

13. van den Berg M, Sherrington C, Killington M, Smith S, Bongers B, Hassett L, et al. Video and computer-based interactive exercises are safe and improve task-specific balance in geriatric and neurological rehabilitation: a randomised trial. J Physiother. 2016;62:20–8. doi: 10.1016/j.jphys.2015.11.005 26701163

14. Hamilton C, McCluskey A, Hassett L, Killington M, Lovarini M. Patient and therapist experiences of using affordable feedback-based technology in rehabilitation: a qualitative study nested in a randomised controlled trial. Clin Rehabil. 2018;32(9):1258–70. doi: 10.1177/0269215518771820 29696990

15. Guralnik JM, Simonsick EM, Ferrucci L, Glynn RJ, Berkman LF, Blazer DG, et al. A short physical performance battery assessing lower extremity function: association with self-reported disability and prediction of mortality and nursing home admission. J Gerontol. 1994;49(2):M85–94. doi: 10.1093/geronj/49.2.m85 8126356

16. New South Wales Health Clinical Excellence Commission. Falls prevention—in public places. Version 1. SHPN (CEC) 120266. Sydney: New South Wales Health Clinical Excellence Commission; 2012.

17. Hassett L, van den Berg M, Lindley RI, Crotty M, McCluskey A, van der Ploeg HP, et al. Effect of affordable technology on physical activity levels and mobility outcomes in rehabilitation: a protocol for the Activity and MObility UsiNg Technology (AMOUNT) rehabilitation trial. BMJ Open. 2016;6(6):e012074. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2016-012074 27266776

18. Onder G, Penninx BW, Lapuerta P, Fried LP, Ostir GV, Guralnik JM, et al. Change in physical performance over time in older women: the Women’s Health and Aging Study. J Gerontol. 2002;57(5):M289–93.

19. Balachandran A, Signorile JF. How to improve reporting of the Short Physical Performance Battery scores. J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci. 2015;70(12):1595–6. doi: 10.1093/gerona/glv161 26392404

20. Treacy D, Hassett L. The Short Physical Performance Battery (Clinimetrics). J Physiother. 2018;64(1):61. doi: 10.1016/j.jphys.2017.04.002 28645532

21. Grant PM, Ryan CG, Tigbe WW, Granat MH. The validation of a novel activity monitor in the measurement of posture and motion during everyday activities. Br J Sports Med. 2006;40(12):992–7. doi: 10.1136/bjsm.2006.030262 16980531

22. de Morton NA, Brusco NK, Wood L, Lawler K, Taylor NF. The de Morton Mobility Index (DEMMI) provides a valid method for measuring and monitoring the mobility of patients making the transition from hospital to the community: an observational study. J Physiother. 2011;57(2):109–16. doi: 10.1016/S1836-9553(11)70021-2 21684492

23. de Morton NA, Lane K. Validity and reliability of the de Morton Mobility Index in the subacute hospital setting in a geriatric evaluation and management population. J Rehabil Med. 2010;42(10):956–61. doi: 10.2340/16501977-0626 21031293

24. Davenport SJ, de Morton NA. Clinimetric properties of the de Morton Mobility Index in healthy, community-dwelling older adults. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2011;92(1):51–8. doi: 10.1016/j.apmr.2010.08.023 21187205

25. Lord SR, Ward JA, Williams P. Exercise effect on dynamic stability in older women: a randomized controlled trial. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 1996;77(3):232–6. doi: 10.1016/s0003-9993(96)90103-3 8600863

26. Hill K. A new test of dynamic standing balance for stroke patients. Physiother Can. 1996;Fall:257–62.

27. War Department Adjutant General’s Office. Army Individual Test Battery. Manual of directions and scoring. Washington (DC): War Department Adjutant General’s Office; 1944.

28. Tombaugh TN. Trail Making Test A and B: normative data stratified by age and education. Arch Clin Neuropsychol. 2004;19(2):203–14. doi: 10.1016/S0887-6177(03)00039-8 15010086

29. Delbaere K, Hauer K, Lord SR. Evaluation of the incidental and planned activity questionnaire (IPEQ) for older people. Br J Sports Med. 2010;44(14):1029–34. doi: 10.1136/bjsm.2009.060350 19474003

30. Laver K, George S, Ratcliffe J, Crotty M. Measuring technology self efficacy: reliability and construct validity of a modified computer self efficacy scale in a clinical rehabilitation setting. Disabil Rehabil. 2012;34(3):220–7. doi: 10.3109/09638288.2011.593682 21958357

31. Powell LE, Myers AM. The Activities-specific Balance Confidence (ABC) Scale. J Gerontol. 1995;50A(1):M28–34.

32. Rehm J, Ustun TB, Saxena S, Nelson CB, Chatterji S, Ivis F, et al. On the development and psychometric testing of the WHO screening instrument to assess disablement in the general population. Int J Methods Psychiatr Res. 1999;8(2):110–22.

33. Andrews G, Kemp A, Sunderland M, Von Korff M, Ustun TB. Normative data for the 12 item WHO Disability Assessment Schedule 2.0. PLoS ONE. 2009;4(12):e8343. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0008343 20020047

34. Brazier J, Roberts J, Deverill M. The estimation of a preference-based measure of health from the SF-36. J Health Econ. 2002;21(2):271–92. doi: 10.1016/s0167-6296(01)00130-8 11939242

35. Walters SJ, Brazier JE. Comparison of the minimally important difference for two health state utility measures: EQ-5D and SF-6D. Qual Life Res. 2005;14(6):1523–32. doi: 10.1007/s11136-004-7713-0 16110932

36. Herdman M, Gudex C, Lloyd A, Janssen M, Kind P, Parkin D, et al. Development and preliminary testing of the new five-level version of EQ-5D (EQ-5D-5L). Qual Life Res. 2011;20(10):1727–36. doi: 10.1007/s11136-011-9903-x 21479777

37. Brooke J. SUS: a “quick and dirty” usability scale. In: Jordan PW, Thomas B, Weerdmeester BA, McClelland IL, editors. Usability evaluation in industry. London: Taylor & Francis; 1996. pp. 189–94.

38. Bangor A, Kortum PT, Miller JT. An empirical evaluation of the system usability scale. Int J Hum Comput Interact. 2008;24(6):574–94.

39. Kendzierski D, DeCarlo K. Physical activity enjoyment scale: two validation studies. J Sport Exercise Psy. 1991;13:50–64.

40. Magill RA. Motor learning and control: concepts and applications. 10th edition. New York: McGraw-Hill Education; 2014.

41. Hamilton C, Lovarini M, McCluskey A, Folly de Campos T, Hassett L. Experiences of therapists using feedback-based technology to improve physical function in rehabilitation settings: a qualitative systematic review. Disabil Rehabil. 2019;41(15):1739–50. doi: 10.1080/09638288.2018.1446187 29513052

42. Badgeley MA, Shameer K, Glicksberg BS, Tomlinson MS, Levin MA, McCormick PJ, et al. EHDViz: clinical dashboard development using open-source technologies. BMJ Open. 2016;6(3):e010579. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2015-010579 27013597

43. Curran GM, Bauer M, Mittman B, Pyne JM, Stetler C. Effectiveness-implementation hybrid designs: combining elements of clinical effectiveness and implementation research to enhance public health impact. Med Care. 2012;50(3):217–26. doi: 10.1097/MLR.0b013e3182408812 22310560

Článek vyšel v časopise

PLOS Medicine

2020 Číslo 2

Nejčtenější v tomto čísle
Zapomenuté heslo

Nemáte účet?  Registrujte se

Zapomenuté heslo

Zadejte e-mailovou adresu, se kterou jste vytvářel(a) účet, budou Vám na ni zaslány informace k nastavení nového hesla.


Nemáte účet?  Registrujte se