Mobility LimitationNCT02526056
Usability and Acceptance of Exergames Among Elderly People and Physiotherapists - a Mixed Method Approach
A study testing Physiotherapists and elderly people in people with Mobility Limitation, run by Klinik Valens at 1 site in Switzerland.
Trial summary
This study is a usability design with qualitative and quantitative aspects. In one part, with patients, physical strain and designs facets will be investigated and in another part with physiotherapists, the therapeutic relevance and design features will be explored. Read more about this study
- Who is it for?
- Ages 65 years and olderHealthy volunteers can take part
- Conditions the study is for
- Mobility Limitation
- What is being tested?
- Physiotherapists and elderly people
- Could I receive a placebo?
- No, everyone receives an active treatment
- How many people
- 27 participants
- Where
- 1 siteSwitzerland
- Study dates
- Jun 2015to May 2016
- Phase
- Interventional
- Are there results?
- None posted in the registry
Key requirements
Who can take part, as listed by the sponsor. Only the study team can confirm whether you are eligible, so take this list to your doctor.
- Ages 65 years and older
- All sexes
- Healthy volunteers accepted
- Older adult
Who may be able to join
- The participants have to be older than 65 years and have had recent illness or surgery or are physiotherapists, which have a working experience at least six months with elderly patients with mobility problems.
Who cannot join
- Cognitive impairment, defined as a Mini Mental State Examination (MMSE) score < 26.
- Other disease, illness or limiting condition that would make inclusion and beneficial use of the system difficult, e.g. complete blindness or deafness or severe disabilities.
Trial locations and contacts
1 site in 1 country.
About this study
This study is a usability design with qualitative and quantitative aspects. In one part, with patients, physical strain and designs facets will be investigated and in another part with physiotherapists, the therapeutic relevance and design features will be explored.
For this reasons 13-15 elderly people have to play an exergame, during their game playing process, different measurements will be done. Additional 13-15 physiotherapists will also playing the exergame, they will be asked about their opinions about the game.
Read the detailed description
Introduction:
The goal of a usability evaluation is to assess the degree to which a system is effective, efficient and favours positive attitudes and responses from the intended users. Exergames in particular present unique usability challenges. Because games are fundamentally different than general productivity tools, traditional usability instruments valid for productivity applications may fall short when used for serious games.
Additionally, serious games target audiences may not play games regularly; usability issues alone can hinder the game play process negatively affecting the learning experience. For this reason, user-based evaluation for exergames with adequate test user group is very important to ensure that heterogeneous population will be able to interact easily with innovative applications.
Exergames:
Exergames are defined as: ''Any number of types of video games that require the game player to physically move in order to play''.
The important aspect, in comparison to a normal videogame, is that the player uses full body movements to control on-screen action and is required to expend a significantly greater amount of energy compared with resting levels.
One of the areas that have received attention of video game researchers is that of therapeutic sessions. When exergames were used with elderly people for therapeutic sessions, it showed that special needs have to be considered.
The GameUp project:
For this reason the project GameUp was started. On their Website the project consortium state: "We will use IT technologies to promote mobility by encouraging elderly persons to be more physical active and motivating them to move more by increasing their self-efficacy". In this context exergames for elderly people were designed for Kinect® for windows. Kinect® observes all the body movements from the game player, so that they can operate the game with their body movements. In this context the game player is forced to move his body frequently in a way that increases his agility.
Therapist's view:
How do physiotherapists view the arrival of exergames in therapy rehabilitation setting, especially exergames for elderly people? Studies that focus on the therapist's view are really rare. One reference came to the conclusion that: "Video games should not be seen as a replacement of a therapist. The presence of the therapist will always be necessary for these patients to ensure that they play the game in the correct seating position, to provide mental support and social interaction during game play." But how do therapists view the use from exergames which patients could do by themselves as self-training during rehabilitation or at home? The same reference argues: "The therapist is paramount in introducing games or virtual rehabilitation to end-users; if he will not adopt the tool in his practice, neither will the patients."
Purpose of the Study:
The aim of this study is to evaluate, if elderly people accept exergames as self-training method and if this exergame is user-friendly for elderly people and physiotherapists. An additionally goal is to examine how physiotherapists evaluate the therapeutic benefit from this exergame.
Research Question:
Are exergames useable and accepted for self-training for elderly people, by themselves as well as by physiotherapists?
Design of the user trial:
This study is a usability design with qualitative and quantitative aspects. In one part, with patients, physical strain and designs facets will be investigated and in another part with physiotherapists, the therapeutic relevance and design features will be explored. Ideally the attributes required to make the product usable should be specified and measured quantitatively against predefined goals.
Number of users needed:
How many users are needed for a usability study is a controversial subject in the literature. One main point is that: "The test users should ideally reflect the serious game's target audience in terms of age, gender, education and any other demographic characteristics". In an other study is mentioned two other important aspects: It seems that serious usability problems were only found with the 13th and 15th participant. Furthermore for a usability test, it is the aim to find a study design that uncovers usability problems at the lowest cost.
In consideration of these arguments this study protocol will include 13-15 participants with different mobility levels. As the mobility level is the most important demographic character, it should be reflected by the user group.
For the physiotherapist the most important demographic character is their experience with exergames, so for this reason 13-15 physiotherapists with different experiences with exergames will be tested.
Measurements:
Heart Rate (HR):
Heart rate is an indicator of cardiovascular strain and provides an objective measure of physical work load. HR of the elderly user will be measured before playing the game, directly after finishing the game and after two minutes break.
The predefined usability criterion is: The mean HR of 80% of elderly users will be below 110 beats per minute. Previous studies have specified that heart rate between 90 and 110 indicates moderate cardiovascular strain.
Rate of Perceived Exertion (RPE):
Borg's RPE-Scale is a standardized, reliable and valid tool to describe the perception of exertion. Elderly users will be presented the Borg's 15-graded RPE scale immediately after completion of the task and will be asked to rate their perceived exertion.
The predefined usability criterion is: The RPE-score of 80% of elderly users will be below 14. This is based on previous studies where scores of more than 13 RPE have been associated with an increased relative risk for musculoskeletal symptoms.
Body Part Discomfort Scale (BPD Scale):
The Body Part Discomfort Scale has become a standard discomfort assessment tool in ergonomics research. Elderly users will be presented with a body map at the beginning and immediately after completion of the user trial.
The predefined usability criterion is: BPD Scale reports of 80% of the elderly users will be below 4. This is based on previous studies where moderate discomfort levels for any body part were selected as a threshold where redesign should be considered.
Task Analysis:
The Perceive, Recall Plan and Perform System (PRPP) is a process-oriented assessment that employs task analysis methods to determine problems with task performance. For this usability study a task analysis will be done during an elderly user or a physiotherapist is playing the game. The major task steps will be analysed to identify where the users struggles with the game design.
The predefined usability criterion for elderly user is: 80% of the elderly users can perform 60% of the needed steps without assistance.
The predefined usability criterion for the physiotherapists is: 80% of the physiotherapist can perform 80% of the needed steps without assistance.
User Questionnaire:
Furthermore to the objective measurements the users will be asked questions about their feelings and opinions about the game. Especially the physiotherapists will be asked if they see a positive therapeutic aspect and if they could imagine giving patients exergames as self-training exercises. This will be done with a questionnaire that includes open questions and five-point Likert scale questions. This is based on publications where it is considered important that the user has a positive attitude towards the product, to ensure regular and widespread use.
Data analyses:
Quantitative data will be collected to review the predefined usability criteria as specified above, using simple descriptive statistics. As sampling will be selective rather than random and the sample size will be small, statistical calculations will most likely be restricted to using median values and ranges. The median is used when no normal distribution of the data is expected and is considered a more robust value since it is not influenced by extremes.
Qualitative data will be presented as a written summary of the open questions from the questionnaires.
- Conditions
- Mobility Limitation
- Being tested
- Physiotherapists, elderly people
- Medical subject headings
- Mobility Limitation
What participants receive
What participants receive. In a randomised study each person is assigned to one group by chance.
PhysiotherapistsOther
This study is a usability design with qualitative and quantitative aspects. The therapeutic relevance and design features will be explored.
elderly peopleOther
In one part, with patients, physical strain and designs facets will be investigated. During their game playing process, different measurements will be done. They will be asked about their opinions about the game.
| Study group | Role | What they receive |
|---|---|---|
| Physiotherapists | Experimental | The physiotherapist have to play the exergame once. Receives: Other: Physiotherapists |
| elderly people | Experimental | The elderly people have play the exergame twice. Receives: Other: elderly people |
What is being measured
The primary outcome is the main question the study is designed to answer.
Change of Heart Rate
Measured: 1 day
Rate of Perceived Exertion
Measured: 1 day
Change of the Body Part Discomfort Scale
Measured: 1 day
How many percent of the needed steps are fulfilled (Task Analysis)
The task analysis will be done, while a Patient oder a Physiotherapist is playing the exergame. For a Task Analysis every single step, that the proband has to do is defined, e.g. press the green start button. The investigator will observe how many from the used steps the proband can do by himself. If the proband needs help, the investigator will help him and notice on which step the proband struggled.
Measured: 1 day
Secondary outcomes (1)
User Questionnaire
Acceptance and opinions about the exergame from the users (elderly people and physiotherapist),will be asked after playing the game with a questionnaire.
Measured: 2 day
Timeline
From the start of the study to its completion; the mark is today. Estimated dates are the sponsor’s plan.
- First posted18 Aug 2015 (estimated)
- Study startJun 2015
- Primary completionMay 2016
- Study completionMay 2016
Resources
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govThe registry entry this page is built from, with its full change history.
- Publications (16)Papers the sponsor has linked to this study.
- Other trials for Mobility LimitationStudies of the same condition, open and under way.
- What the trial phases meanHow a treatment moves from first tests in people to approval.
More details
For doctors and researchers: how the study is designed, who runs it, and its registry IDs.
Study design
- Study type
- Interventional
- Phase
- Phase N/A
- Primary purpose
- Treatment
- Allocation
- Non-randomised
- Intervention model
- Single group
- Masking
- None (open label)
- Enrolment
- 27 participants (actual)
Sponsor and investigators
- Lead sponsor
- Klinik Valens
- Sponsor type
- University, hospital or other
- Responsible party
- Principal investigator, Cynthia Bovard, Klinik Valens
- Investigators
- Peter Oesch, Dr., Study director, Kliniken Valens
IDs, dates and publications
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT02526056
- Sponsor's protocol ID
- EKSG 15/064
- Status last verified
- Jul 2016
- First submitted
- 9 Jul 2015
- Last updated
- 11 Jul 2016
- Results posted
- No
- Data monitoring committee
- No
- Individual data sharing
- No
Publications
Bastien JM. Usability testing: a review of some methodological and technical aspects of the method. Int J Med Inform. 2010 Apr;79(4):e18-23. doi: 10.1016/j.ijmedinf.2008.12.004. Epub 2009 Apr 2.
PubMed 19345139Wuest S, Borghese NA, Pirovano M, Mainetti R, van de Langenberg R, de Bruin ED. Usability and Effects of an Exergame-Based Balance Training Program. Games Health J. 2014 Apr 1;3(2):106-114. doi: 10.1089/g4h.2013.0093.
PubMed 24804155Plow M, Finlayson M. A qualitative study exploring the usability of Nintendo Wii Fit among persons with multiple sclerosis. Occup Ther Int. 2014 Mar;21(1):21-32. doi: 10.1002/oti.1345. Epub 2013 Apr 24.
PubMed 23613154Annema JH, Verstraete M, Abeele VV, Desmet S, Geerts D. Video games in therapy: a therapist's perspective. International Journal of Arts and Technology. 2013;6(1):106-22.
Moreno-Ger P, Torrente J, Hsieh YG, Lester WT. Usability testing for serious games: Making informed design decisions with user data. Advances in Human-Computer Interaction. 2012;2012:4.
GameUp. More information about GameUp. Game-Based Mobility Training and Motivation of Senior Citizens. Zaragoza (Spain): Ibernex; c2014 [cited 2015 Jan 06]. Available from: http://www.gameupproject.eu/?page_id=13. German.
Microsoft. Meet Kinect 2015 [cited 2015 Jan 24]. Available from: http://www.microsoft.com/en-us/kinectforwindows/meetkinect/default.aspx.
Hughes M. Rigor in Usability Testing. Technical Communication: Journal of the Society for Technical Communication. 1999;46(4):488-94.
Åstrand P, Rodahl K. Textbook of Work Physiology: Physiological Bases of Exercise. 3 ed. Singapore: McGraw-Hill; 1986.
Finch E, Brooks D, Strattford P, Mayo N. Physical Rehabilitation Outcome Measures. 2 ed. Hamilton: Canadian Physiotherapy Association; 2002.
Josephson M, Hagberg M, Hjelm EW. Self-reported physical exertion in geriatric care. A risk indicator for low back symptoms? Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 1996 Dec 1;21(23):2781-5. doi: 10.1097/00007632-199612010-00014.
PubMed 8979326Corlett EN, Bishop RP. A technique for assessing postural discomfort. Ergonomics. 1976 Mar;19(2):175-82. doi: 10.1080/00140137608931530. No abstract available.
PubMed 1278144Chapparo C, Ranka J. The perceive, recall, plan, perform (PRPP) system of task analysis 2014 [cited 2015 Jan 09]. Available from: http://www.occupationalperformance.com/the-perceive-recall-plan-perform-prpp-system-of-task-analysis/.
Faulkner X. Usability Engineering. New York 2000.
Schädler S. Ein aufschlussreicher Test fürs Gleichgewicht. physiopraxis. 2007;5(11/12):40-1.
Study at a glance
From the registry record, last updated by the sponsor on 11 Jul 2016. Recruitment status is as the sponsor reported it: confirm with the study team.
- Official title
- Usability and Acceptance of Exergames Among Elderly People and Physiotherapists - a Mixed Method Approach
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT02526056
- Acronym / sponsor ID
- EKSG 15/064
- Conditions
- Mobility Limitation
- Study type
- Interventional
- Recruitment status
- Completed
- Enrolment
- 27 participants (actual)
- Lead sponsor
- Klinik ValensUniversity, hospital or other
- Study start
- Jun 2015
- Primary completion
- May 2016 (actual)
- Study completion
- May 2016 (actual)
- First posted
- 18 Aug 2015 (estimated)
- Results
- Not posted in the source record
Clinical summary
The research question as the sponsor registered it. This describes what the study plans to test, not what it found.
This study is a usability design with qualitative and quantitative aspects. In one part, with patients, physical strain and designs facets will be investigated and in another part with physiotherapists, the therapeutic relevance and design features will be explored.
For this reasons 13-15 elderly people have to play an exergame, during their game playing process, different measurements will be done. Additional 13-15 physiotherapists will also playing the exergame, they will be asked about their opinions about the game.
Detailed description
Introduction:
The goal of a usability evaluation is to assess the degree to which a system is effective, efficient and favours positive attitudes and responses from the intended users. Exergames in particular present unique usability challenges. Because games are fundamentally different than general productivity tools, traditional usability instruments valid for productivity applications may fall short when used for serious games.
Additionally, serious games target audiences may not play games regularly; usability issues alone can hinder the game play process negatively affecting the learning experience. For this reason, user-based evaluation for exergames with adequate test user group is very important to ensure that heterogeneous population will be able to interact easily with innovative applications.
Exergames:
Exergames are defined as: ''Any number of types of video games that require the game player to physically move in order to play''.
The important aspect, in comparison to a normal videogame, is that the player uses full body movements to control on-screen action and is required to expend a significantly greater amount of energy compared with resting levels.
One of the areas that have received attention of video game researchers is that of therapeutic sessions. When exergames were used with elderly people for therapeutic sessions, it showed that special needs have to be considered.
The GameUp project:
For this reason the project GameUp was started. On their Website the project consortium state: "We will use IT technologies to promote mobility by encouraging elderly persons to be more physical active and motivating them to move more by increasing their self-efficacy". In this context exergames for elderly people were designed for Kinect® for windows. Kinect® observes all the body movements from the game player, so that they can operate the game with their body movements. In this context the game player is forced to move his body frequently in a way that increases his agility.
Therapist's view:
How do physiotherapists view the arrival of exergames in therapy rehabilitation setting, especially exergames for elderly people? Studies that focus on the therapist's view are really rare. One reference came to the conclusion that: "Video games should not be seen as a replacement of a therapist. The presence of the therapist will always be necessary for these patients to ensure that they play the game in the correct seating position, to provide mental support and social interaction during game play." But how do therapists view the use from exergames which patients could do by themselves as self-training during rehabilitation or at home? The same reference argues: "The therapist is paramount in introducing games or virtual rehabilitation to end-users; if he will not adopt the tool in his practice, neither will the patients."
Purpose of the Study:
The aim of this study is to evaluate, if elderly people accept exergames as self-training method and if this exergame is user-friendly for elderly people and physiotherapists. An additionally goal is to examine how physiotherapists evaluate the therapeutic benefit from this exergame.
Research Question:
Are exergames useable and accepted for self-training for elderly people, by themselves as well as by physiotherapists?
Design of the user trial:
This study is a usability design with qualitative and quantitative aspects. In one part, with patients, physical strain and designs facets will be investigated and in another part with physiotherapists, the therapeutic relevance and design features will be explored. Ideally the attributes required to make the product usable should be specified and measured quantitatively against predefined goals.
Number of users needed:
How many users are needed for a usability study is a controversial subject in the literature. One main point is that: "The test users should ideally reflect the serious game's target audience in terms of age, gender, education and any other demographic characteristics". In an other study is mentioned two other important aspects: It seems that serious usability problems were only found with the 13th and 15th participant. Furthermore for a usability test, it is the aim to find a study design that uncovers usability problems at the lowest cost.
In consideration of these arguments this study protocol will include 13-15 participants with different mobility levels. As the mobility level is the most important demographic character, it should be reflected by the user group.
For the physiotherapist the most important demographic character is their experience with exergames, so for this reason 13-15 physiotherapists with different experiences with exergames will be tested.
Measurements:
Heart Rate (HR):
Heart rate is an indicator of cardiovascular strain and provides an objective measure of physical work load. HR of the elderly user will be measured before playing the game, directly after finishing the game and after two minutes break.
The predefined usability criterion is: The mean HR of 80% of elderly users will be below 110 beats per minute. Previous studies have specified that heart rate between 90 and 110 indicates moderate cardiovascular strain.
Rate of Perceived Exertion (RPE):
Borg's RPE-Scale is a standardized, reliable and valid tool to describe the perception of exertion. Elderly users will be presented the Borg's 15-graded RPE scale immediately after completion of the task and will be asked to rate their perceived exertion.
The predefined usability criterion is: The RPE-score of 80% of elderly users will be below 14. This is based on previous studies where scores of more than 13 RPE have been associated with an increased relative risk for musculoskeletal symptoms.
Body Part Discomfort Scale (BPD Scale):
The Body Part Discomfort Scale has become a standard discomfort assessment tool in ergonomics research. Elderly users will be presented with a body map at the beginning and immediately after completion of the user trial.
The predefined usability criterion is: BPD Scale reports of 80% of the elderly users will be below 4. This is based on previous studies where moderate discomfort levels for any body part were selected as a threshold where redesign should be considered.
Task Analysis:
The Perceive, Recall Plan and Perform System (PRPP) is a process-oriented assessment that employs task analysis methods to determine problems with task performance. For this usability study a task analysis will be done during an elderly user or a physiotherapist is playing the game. The major task steps will be analysed to identify where the users struggles with the game design.
The predefined usability criterion for elderly user is: 80% of the elderly users can perform 60% of the needed steps without assistance.
The predefined usability criterion for the physiotherapists is: 80% of the physiotherapist can perform 80% of the needed steps without assistance.
User Questionnaire:
Furthermore to the objective measurements the users will be asked questions about their feelings and opinions about the game. Especially the physiotherapists will be asked if they see a positive therapeutic aspect and if they could imagine giving patients exergames as self-training exercises. This will be done with a questionnaire that includes open questions and five-point Likert scale questions. This is based on publications where it is considered important that the user has a positive attitude towards the product, to ensure regular and widespread use.
Data analyses:
Quantitative data will be collected to review the predefined usability criteria as specified above, using simple descriptive statistics. As sampling will be selective rather than random and the sample size will be small, statistical calculations will most likely be restricted to using median values and ranges. The median is used when no normal distribution of the data is expected and is considered a more robust value since it is not influenced by extremes.
Qualitative data will be presented as a written summary of the open questions from the questionnaires.
Study design
- Primary purpose
- Treatment
- Allocation
- Non-randomised
- Intervention model
- Single group
- Masking
- None (open label)
- Number of arms
- 2
| Arm | Type | Receives |
|---|---|---|
| Physiotherapists | Experimental | Other: PhysiotherapistsThe physiotherapist have to play the exergame once. |
| elderly people | Experimental | Other: elderly peopleThe elderly people have play the exergame twice. |
Who may qualify
- Ages
- 65 years and older
- Sex
- All
- Healthy volunteers
- Accepted
- Age groups
- Older adult
Key inclusion criteria (1 listed)
- The participants have to be older than 65 years and have had recent illness or surgery or are physiotherapists, which have a working experience at least six months with elderly patients with mobility problems.
Key exclusion criteria (2 listed)
- Cognitive impairment, defined as a Mini Mental State Examination (MMSE) score < 26.
- Other disease, illness or limiting condition that would make inclusion and beneficial use of the system difficult, e.g. complete blindness or deafness or severe disabilities.
Eligibility is decided by the study team after screening; this overview does not establish that a patient qualifies. Full inclusion and exclusion criteria.
Interventions
| Intervention | Type | Arms |
|---|---|---|
| PhysiotherapistsThis study is a usability design with qualitative and quantitative aspects. The therapeutic relevance and design features will be explored. | Other | Physiotherapists |
| elderly peopleIn one part, with patients, physical strain and designs facets will be investigated. During their game playing process, different measurements will be done. They will be asked about their opinions about the game. | Other | elderly people |
Primary outcome
Change of Heart Rate
Time frame: 1 day
Rate of Perceived Exertion
Time frame: 1 day
Change of the Body Part Discomfort Scale
Time frame: 1 day
How many percent of the needed steps are fulfilled (Task Analysis)
Time frame: 1 day
The task analysis will be done, while a Patient oder a Physiotherapist is playing the exergame. For a Task Analysis every single step, that the proband has to do is defined, e.g. press the green start button. The investigator will observe how many from the used steps the proband can do by himself. If the proband needs help, the investigator will help him and notice on which step the proband struggled.
1 secondary outcome
User Questionnaire
Time frame: 2 day
Results and safety
The study is completed, but results are not available in the source record. That does not mean the treatment did or did not work.
Research links
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govLast updated by the sponsor 11 Jul 2016.
- Background: PubMed 19345139Bastien JM. Usability testing: a review of some methodological and technical aspects of the method. Int J Med Inform. 2010 Apr;79(4):e18-23. doi: 10.1016/j.ijmedinf.2008.12.004. Epub 2009 Apr 2.
- Background: PubMed 24804155Wuest S, Borghese NA, Pirovano M, Mainetti R, van de Langenberg R, de Bruin ED. Usability and Effects of an Exergame-Based Balance Training Program. Games Health J. 2014 Apr 1;3(2):106-114. doi: 10.1089/g4h.2013.0093.
- Background: PubMed 23613154Plow M, Finlayson M. A qualitative study exploring the usability of Nintendo Wii Fit among persons with multiple sclerosis. Occup Ther Int. 2014 Mar;21(1):21-32. doi: 10.1002/oti.1345. Epub 2013 Apr 24.
- BackgroundAnnema JH, Verstraete M, Abeele VV, Desmet S, Geerts D. Video games in therapy: a therapist's perspective. International Journal of Arts and Technology. 2013;6(1):106-22.
- BackgroundMoreno-Ger P, Torrente J, Hsieh YG, Lester WT. Usability testing for serious games: Making informed design decisions with user data. Advances in Human-Computer Interaction. 2012;2012:4.
- BackgroundGameUp. More information about GameUp. Game-Based Mobility Training and Motivation of Senior Citizens. Zaragoza (Spain): Ibernex; c2014 [cited 2015 Jan 06]. Available from: http://www.gameupproject.eu/?page_id=13. German.
- BackgroundMicrosoft. Meet Kinect 2015 [cited 2015 Jan 24]. Available from: http://www.microsoft.com/en-us/kinectforwindows/meetkinect/default.aspx.
- BackgroundHughes M. Rigor in Usability Testing. Technical Communication: Journal of the Society for Technical Communication. 1999;46(4):488-94.
- BackgroundÅstrand P, Rodahl K. Textbook of Work Physiology: Physiological Bases of Exercise. 3 ed. Singapore: McGraw-Hill; 1986.
- BackgroundFinch E, Brooks D, Strattford P, Mayo N. Physical Rehabilitation Outcome Measures. 2 ed. Hamilton: Canadian Physiotherapy Association; 2002.
- Background: PubMed 8979326Josephson M, Hagberg M, Hjelm EW. Self-reported physical exertion in geriatric care. A risk indicator for low back symptoms? Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 1996 Dec 1;21(23):2781-5. doi: 10.1097/00007632-199612010-00014.
- Background: PubMed 1278144Corlett EN, Bishop RP. A technique for assessing postural discomfort. Ergonomics. 1976 Mar;19(2):175-82. doi: 10.1080/00140137608931530. No abstract available.
- Individual participant dataSharing planned: No
Related trials for Mobility Limitation
Recruiting
Assisted Ambulation to Improve Health Outcomes for Older Medical Inpatients
Mobility Limitation, Frailty
Not yet recruiting
Pilates vs. Core Stabilization for Balance and Mobility in Elderly Type 2 Diabetics
Mellitus Balance Deficits Postural Balance Mobility Limitation, Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus
Recruiting
Evaluation of Impaired Mobility in Chronic Illness Constitution of a Cohort
Joint Osteoarthritis, Atherosclerosis of the Distal Arteries, Without Gangrene
Recruiting
Brain Stimulation Effects on Orientation and Mobility Skills in Adults With Vision Impairment
Retinitis Pigmentosa (RP), Rod Cone Dystrophy
RecruitingObservational study
Effectiveness and Safety of OSTENIL® TENDON in the Treatment of Pain and Restricted Mobility in Tendon Disorders
Tendinopathy
Referral and contact
AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals. Contact the study team or a site listed below; they decide who can take part. This study is not recruiting at the moment.
Peter Oesch, Dr. study director
Kliniken Valens
1 site in 1 country: see every site and its status.
Questions about this trial
What is this clinical trial studying?
A study testing Physiotherapists and elderly people in people with Mobility Limitation, run by Klinik Valens at 1 site in Switzerland.
The full registered description is in the About this study section and the official record.
Who may be eligible to take part?
The sponsor lists 1 inclusion and 2 exclusion criteria. Eligibility is decided by the study team after screening, so read the full criteria and contact a listed site.
Is this clinical trial currently recruiting?
The record says: finished, as of the sponsor's last update on 11 Jul 2016. Status can change between updates, so confirm with the study contact before making plans.
Where is the study taking place?
The record lists 1 site in Switzerland. Whether a site is taking part right now should be confirmed with that site. See every site.
What are the possible benefits and risks?
They depend on the study and the treatment, and no study can promise a benefit. The study team explains the known risks during informed consent, before anyone joins; the record itself does not list them.
Are results available for this study?
The study is completed, but results are not available in the source record. That does not mean the treatment did or did not work.
How can a doctor refer a patient or contact the research team?
The record lists no contact. The official record names the sponsor, who can be asked directly. AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals.
What does the primary outcome measure?
Change of Heart Rate (time frame: 1 day). The study lists 4 primary outcomes in all. It is what the study was designed to measure, not a finding.
Where can I read the original study information?
On the ClinicalTrials.gov record for NCT02526056, which also lists 16 linked publications.
Does a listing mean the treatment is approved or proven to work?
No. A listing means the study is registered. It does not show that the treatment is safe, works, or is approved by a regulator.
How often is this information updated?
AzTrials copies changed records from ClinicalTrials.gov every night and reloads the whole registry every week. The sponsor last updated this record on 11 Jul 2016.