Sensor-based outcomes to monitor everyday life motor activities of children and adolescents with neuromotor impairments: A survey with health professionals

In combination with appropriate data processing algorithms, wearable inertial sensors enable the measurement of motor activities in children's and adolescents' habitual environments after rehabilitation. However, existing algorithms were predominantly designed for adult patients, and their outcomes might not be relevant for a pediatric population. In this study, we identified the needs of pediatric rehabilitation to create the basis for developing new algorithms that derive clinically relevant outcomes for children and adolescents with neuromotor impairments. We conducted an international survey with health professionals of pediatric neurorehabilitation centers, provided them a list of 34 outcome measures currently used in the literature, and asked them to rate the clinical relevance of these measures for a pediatric population. The survey was completed by 62 therapists, 16 doctors, and 9 nurses of 16 different pediatric neurorehabilitation centers from Switzerland, Germany, and Austria. They had an average work experience of 13 ± 10 years. The most relevant outcome measures were the duration of lying, sitting, and standing positions; the amount of active self-propulsion during wheeling periods; the hand use laterality; and the duration, distance, and speed of walking periods. The health profession, work experience, and workplace had a minimal impact on the priorities of health professionals. Eventually, we complemented the survey findings with the family priorities of a previous study to provide developers with the clinically most relevant outcomes to monitor everyday life motor activities of children and adolescents with neuromotor impairments.

[1]  F. Rast,et al.  Concurrent validity of different sensor-based measures: Activity counts do not reflect functional hand use in children and adolescents with upper limb impairments. , 2022, Archives of physical medicine and rehabilitation.

[2]  Rob Labruyère,et al.  Systematic review on the application of wearable inertial sensors to quantify everyday life motor activity in people with mobility impairments , 2020, Journal of neuroengineering and rehabilitation.

[3]  Catherine E Lang,et al.  Implementation of Wearable Sensing Technology for Movement: Pushing Forward into the Routine Physical Rehabilitation Care Field , 2020, Sensors.

[4]  Anisoara Paraschiv-Ionescu,et al.  Multidimensional Measures of Physical Activity and Their Association with Gross Motor Capacity in Children and Adolescents with Cerebral Palsy , 2020, Sensors.

[5]  Benjamin I Goodlich,et al.  Machine learning to quantify habitual physical activity in children with cerebral palsy , 2020, Developmental medicine and child neurology.

[6]  J. Dan Wearable sensors to improve activities in individuals with cerebral palsy , 2020, Developmental Medicine & Child Neurology.

[7]  K. Aminian,et al.  Comparison of gait characteristics between clinical and daily life settings in children with cerebral palsy , 2020, Scientific Reports.

[8]  F. Rast,et al.  ICF mobility and self‐care goals of children in inpatient rehabilitation , 2020, Developmental medicine and child neurology.

[9]  Susie Macfarlane,et al.  Parental Perspectives of a Wearable Activity Tracker for Children Younger Than 13 Years: Acceptability and Usability Study , 2019, JMIR mHealth and uHealth.

[10]  J. Bussmann,et al.  A Novel Tool for Quantifying and Promoting Physical Activity in Youths With Typical Development and Youths Who Are Ambulatory and Have Motor Disability , 2019, Physical therapy.

[11]  Stewart Trost,et al.  Machine learning algorithms for activity recognition in ambulant children and adolescents with cerebral palsy , 2018, Journal of NeuroEngineering and Rehabilitation.

[12]  G. Cioni,et al.  Assessment of upper limb use in children with typical development and neurodevelopmental disorders by inertial sensors: a systematic review , 2018, Journal of NeuroEngineering and Rehabilitation.

[13]  Roger Gassert,et al.  A novel algorithm for detecting active propulsion in wheelchair users following spinal cord injury. , 2016, Medical engineering & physics.

[14]  H. Stam,et al.  Validation of an activity monitor for children who are partly or completely wheelchair-dependent , 2015, Journal of NeuroEngineering and Rehabilitation.

[15]  Tracy L. Washington,et al.  Practical physical activity measurement in youth: a review of contemporary approaches , 2012, World Journal of Pediatrics.

[16]  E. Mohammadi,et al.  Barriers and facilitators related to the implementation of a physiological track and trigger system: A systematic review of the qualitative evidence , 2017, International journal for quality in health care : journal of the International Society for Quality in Health Care.

[17]  A. Mcgregor,et al.  Body-Worn Sensor Design: What Do Patients and Clinicians Want? , 2011, Annals of Biomedical Engineering.

[18]  Kelly M. Clanchy,et al.  Measurement of habitual physical activity performance in adolescents with cerebral palsy: a systematic review , 2011, Developmental medicine and child neurology.

[19]  Roslyn N. Boyd,et al.  Validity of accelerometry in ambulatory children and adolescents with cerebral palsy , 2011, European Journal of Applied Physiology.

[20]  M. Orlin,et al.  Family Priorities for Activity and Participation of Children and Youth With Cerebral Palsy , 2010, Physical Therapy.

[21]  Roderick J A Little,et al.  A Review of Hot Deck Imputation for Survey Non‐response , 2010, International statistical review = Revue internationale de statistique.

[22]  Marina M Schoemaker,et al.  Capacity, capability, and performance: different constructs or three of a kind? , 2009, Archives of physical medicine and rehabilitation.

[23]  C. Buckon,et al.  Comparison of three ankle‐foot orthosis configurations for children with spastic hemiplegia , 2001 .