Investigating the clinical utility of wearable motion sensors to guide therapy in children with cerebral palsy
Details
State: Public
Version: After imprimatur
License: Not specified
Secondary document(s)
Download: Mémoire no 5749 Annexes Mme Uka.pdf (361.53 [Ko])
State: Public
Version: author
License: Not specified
State: Public
Version: author
License: Not specified
Serval ID
serval:BIB_C08FD80E9CD3
Type
A Master's thesis.
Publication sub-type
Master (thesis) (master)
Collection
Publications
Institution
Title
Investigating the clinical utility of wearable motion sensors to guide therapy in children with cerebral palsy
Director(s)
NEWMAN C.
Codirector(s)
GERBER C.
Institution details
Université de Lausanne, Faculté de biologie et médecine
Publication state
Accepted
Issued date
2018
Language
english
Number of pages
30
Abstract
Background: Children with cerebral palsy (CP) experience a wide range of motor
impairments and rarely achieve the recommended level of daily physical activity. To
recognise environmental barriers and facilitators, clinicians depend upon an objective
evaluation of performance in daily life. Wearable inertial sensors (Physilog®) have recently
been developed to measure meaningful spatio-temporal gait parameters. In this study, we
investigated the clinical utility of wearable sensors to guide therapy in children with CP.
Methods: 9 patients with CP wore inertial sensors at baseline (= week 0), at pre- (= week 4)
and post-intervention (= week 8) and follow-up (= week 12). Physiotherapists were asked to
develop the intervention phase (i.e., a training plan integrated in their patient’s daily routine)
according to the sensors outcomes. To assess the clinical utility of inertial sensors, we
designed three different questionnaires for the patients, caregivers and physiotherapists,
respectively. The answers were recorded using a visual analogue scale (VAS; 0 representing
the worst score, 100 representing the best score; ≤30 not satisfied, 31–69 average, ≥70
satisfied) and comments were noted down during the interviews. Furthermore, technical
problems and training plans were gathered in a case report form.
Results: Overall, patients were satisfied with the sensors (mean 70.6 - 87.4) but
experienced tiredness (mean 53.4) during the month of personal training. Caregivers found
the sensors useful (mean 77.4) and six out of eight parents noticed an improvement of their
child’s physical performance. All physiotherapists would consider using sensors in their
practice (mean 82.0) even though they scored their usefulness as average (mean 66.0).
Despite having a better representation of patients’ physical activities with sensors (mean
70.0), physiotherapists had trouble adapting the exercises proposed to their patients (mean
49.0).
Conclusion: Despite some technical issues, Physilog® sensors presented fairly good
acceptability and practicability. Nevertheless, several physiotherapists faced difficulties in
adapting existing therapy according to sensor outcomes. Therefore, the implementation of
the sensors in clinics to guide therapy will require further adaptations of the setting to
increase its relevance.
impairments and rarely achieve the recommended level of daily physical activity. To
recognise environmental barriers and facilitators, clinicians depend upon an objective
evaluation of performance in daily life. Wearable inertial sensors (Physilog®) have recently
been developed to measure meaningful spatio-temporal gait parameters. In this study, we
investigated the clinical utility of wearable sensors to guide therapy in children with CP.
Methods: 9 patients with CP wore inertial sensors at baseline (= week 0), at pre- (= week 4)
and post-intervention (= week 8) and follow-up (= week 12). Physiotherapists were asked to
develop the intervention phase (i.e., a training plan integrated in their patient’s daily routine)
according to the sensors outcomes. To assess the clinical utility of inertial sensors, we
designed three different questionnaires for the patients, caregivers and physiotherapists,
respectively. The answers were recorded using a visual analogue scale (VAS; 0 representing
the worst score, 100 representing the best score; ≤30 not satisfied, 31–69 average, ≥70
satisfied) and comments were noted down during the interviews. Furthermore, technical
problems and training plans were gathered in a case report form.
Results: Overall, patients were satisfied with the sensors (mean 70.6 - 87.4) but
experienced tiredness (mean 53.4) during the month of personal training. Caregivers found
the sensors useful (mean 77.4) and six out of eight parents noticed an improvement of their
child’s physical performance. All physiotherapists would consider using sensors in their
practice (mean 82.0) even though they scored their usefulness as average (mean 66.0).
Despite having a better representation of patients’ physical activities with sensors (mean
70.0), physiotherapists had trouble adapting the exercises proposed to their patients (mean
49.0).
Conclusion: Despite some technical issues, Physilog® sensors presented fairly good
acceptability and practicability. Nevertheless, several physiotherapists faced difficulties in
adapting existing therapy according to sensor outcomes. Therefore, the implementation of
the sensors in clinics to guide therapy will require further adaptations of the setting to
increase its relevance.
Keywords
Clinical utility, Inertial sensors, Cerebral palsy, Performance, Personalized training
Create date
02/09/2019 16:49
Last modification date
08/09/2020 7:10
Usage data
