Author
Listed:
- Robert W Motl
- Lara A Pilutti
- Yvonne C Learmonth
- Myla D Goldman
- Ted Brown
Abstract
Background: The number of steps taken per day (steps/day) provides a reliable and valid outcome of free-living walking behavior in persons with multiple sclerosis (MS). Objective: This study examined the clinical meaningfulness of steps/day using the minimal clinically important difference (MCID) value across stages representing the developing impact of MS. Methods: This study was a secondary analysis of de-identified data from 15 investigations totaling 786 persons with MS and 157 healthy controls. All participants provided demographic information and wore an accelerometer or pedometer during the waking hours of a 7-day period. Those with MS further provided real-life, health, and clinical information and completed the Multiple Sclerosis Walking Scale-12 (MSWS-12) and Patient Determined Disease Steps (PDDS) scale. MCID estimates were based on regression analyses and analysis of variance for between group differences. Results: The mean MCID from self-report scales that capture subtle changes in ambulation (1-point change in PDSS scores and 10-point change in MSWS-12 scores) was 779 steps/day (14% of mean score for MS sample); the mean MCID for clinical/health outcomes (MS type, duration, weight status) was 1,455 steps/day (26% of mean score for MS sample); real-life anchors (unemployment, divorce, assistive device use) resulted in a mean MCID of 2,580 steps/day (45% of mean score for MS sample); and the MCID for the cumulative impact of MS (MS vs. control) was 2,747 steps/day (48% of mean score for MS sample). Conclusion: The change in motion sensor output of ∼800 steps/day appears to represent a lower-bound estimate of clinically meaningful change in free-living walking behavior in interventions of MS.
Suggested Citation
Robert W Motl & Lara A Pilutti & Yvonne C Learmonth & Myla D Goldman & Ted Brown, 2013.
"Clinical Importance of Steps Taken per Day among Persons with Multiple Sclerosis,"
PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 8(9), pages 1-7, September.
Handle:
RePEc:plo:pone00:0073247
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0073247
Download full text from publisher
Corrections
All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0073247. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.
If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.
We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .
If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .
Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through
the various RePEc services.