CClinicalTrials.gg
CompletedNCT01521234Updated May 13, 2015

Using Wireless-technology for Feedback of Daily Walking Activity Post-stroke

An interventional study of Feedback of daily walking activity in Stroke, sponsored by Toronto Rehabilitation Institute. Completed at 1 site in Canada. Open to participants aged 18 Years and older. Per ClinicalTrials.gov, last updated 2015-05-13.

Sponsored by Toronto Rehabilitation Institute · Not applicable, Interventional, and Treatment

Phase
Not applicable
Study type
Interventional
Enrollment
63
Allocation
Randomized
Ages
18 Years and older
Sex
All
01

Study summary

Regaining independent walking is the top priority for individuals recovering from stroke. Thus, physical rehabilitation post-stroke should focus on improving walking function and endurance. However, the amount of walking completed by individuals with stroke attending rehabilitation is far below that required for independent community ambulation. There has been increased interest in accelerometer-based monitoring of walking post-stroke. Walking monitoring could be integrated within the goal-setting process for those with ambulation goals in rehabilitation. The purpose of this study is to determine the effect of accelerometer-based feedback of daily walking activity during rehabilitation on the frequency and duration of walking post-stroke.

02

Conditions studied

  • Stroke

Browse trials for

03

In context

Stroke

7,286 studies on the registry are indexed under Stroke; 2,007 are open to participants now.

This study's enrollment of 63 is above the median of 50 across 5,369 interventional studies indexed under Stroke.

Browse Stroke studies →

Lead sponsor

Toronto Rehabilitation Institute is the lead sponsor of 39 studies on the registry; 5 are open to participants now.

Counted across the registry records on this site, refreshed daily.

04

Who can participate

Ages eligible
18 Years and older
Sexes eligible
All
Accepts healthy volunteers
No

Eligibility criteria

Inclusion Criteria:

  • individuals with sub-acute stroke attending in-patient rehabilitation at Toronto Rehab
  • patients who have identified improving walking function as a rehabilitation goal
  • patients who can walk without supervision at the time of recruitment into the study
05

Study design

Phase
Not applicable
Primary purpose
Treatment
Allocation
Randomized
Intervention model
Single group
Masking
Single (Outcomes assessor)
Enrollment
63 participants (actual)

Study arms

  • Experimental
    Feedback group

    For participants assigned to the feedback group, physiotherapists will receive a summary of patients' walking activity for the previous week as a tool to guide goal planning. Physiotherapists will use the information as a 'homework checker' to determine if patients are complying with an assigned walking program. In the case of non-compliance, the physiotherapist will discuss a coping strategy for better integrating walking activity into the patients' day. In the event that the patient is meeting their specific sub-goals for walking activity, the physiotherapist will re-evaluate these sub-goals and suggest more challenging goals.

    Behavioral: Feedback of daily walking activity

  • No intervention
    No-feedback group

    For participants assigned to the control group, physiotherapists will not receive accelerometer-based feedback of daily walking activity. However, physiotherapists will still discuss the achievement of walking goals with their patients. This is usual care around goal planning.

Interventions

  • BehavioralFeedback of daily walking activity

    Participants will wear accelerometers every weekday during in-patient rehabilitation to monitor walking activity. Feedback of daily walking activity will be provided to the patients' treating physiotherapists to assist with goal-planning around walking.

06

What researchers measure

Primary outcomes

  1. Change in walking activity from admission to discharge from rehabilitation

    Total daily walking acitivty, measured by number of steps per day, total duration of walking activity, total distance walked, and frequency of 'long' walking bouts (\>5 minutes in duration).

    Time frame: Admission and discharge from in-patient rehabilitation (approx. 4-6 weeks)

  2. Change in control of walking

    Self-selected walking speed and symmetry of spatio-temporal characteristics of walking

    Time frame: Admission and discharge from in-patient rehabilitation (approx. 4-6 weeks)

Secondary outcomes

  1. Change in self-efficacy

    Stroke self-efficacy questionnaire

    Time frame: Admission and discharge from in-patient rehabilitation (approx. 4-6 weeks)

  2. Goal attainment

    Rehabilitation goals are classified as 'achieved', 'partially achieved', 'not completed' or 'discontinued'.

    Time frame: Discharge from in-patient rehabilitation (4-6 weeks), discharge from out-patient rehabilitation (10-16 weeks)

  3. Community integration

    Community integration questionnaire

    Time frame: Discharge from out-patient rehabilitation (10-16 weeks) and 3-month follow-up

  4. Satisfaction with progress towards rehabilitation goals

    Participants will be asked to rate satisfaction with progress towards goals on a 10-point scale

    Time frame: Discharge from in-patient rehabilitation (4-6 weeks) and discharge from out-patient rehabilitation (10-16 weeks)

  5. Barriers to walking

    Open-ended question regarding participants' perceived barriers to walking.

    Time frame: Monitored throughout participants' enrolment (0-28 weeks)

  6. Falls

    Increased walking activity might increase the risk for falls. Falls experienced throughout the study will be recorded to determine if there are more falls in the experimental group.

    Time frame: Monitored throughout participants' enrolment (0-28 weeks)

07

Study locations

1 site
  • Toronto Rehabilitation Institute
    Toronto, Ontario M5G 2A2, Canada
08

References and documents

Publications

  • Prajapati SK, Gage WH, Brooks D, Black SE, McIlroy WE. A novel approach to ambulatory monitoring: investigation into the quantity and control of everyday walking in patients with subacute stroke. Neurorehabil Neural Repair. 2011 Jan;25(1):6-14. doi: 10.1177/1545968310374189. Epub 2010 Sep 9. PubMed 20829413 ↗
  • Mansfield A, Wong JS, Bayley M, Biasin L, Brooks D, Brunton K, Howe JA, Inness EL, Jones S, Lymburner J, Mileris R, McIlroy WE. Using wireless technology in clinical practice: does feedback of daily walking activity improve walking outcomes of individuals receiving rehabilitation post-stroke? Study protocol for a randomized controlled trial. BMC Neurol. 2013 Jul 18;13:93. doi: 10.1186/1471-2377-13-93. PubMed 23865593 ↗
  • Mansfield A, Wong JS, Bryce J, Brunton K, Inness EL, Knorr S, Jones S, Taati B, McIlroy WE. Use of Accelerometer-Based Feedback of Walking Activity for Appraising Progress With Walking-Related Goals in Inpatient Stroke Rehabilitation: A Randomized Controlled Trial. Neurorehabil Neural Repair. 2015 Oct;29(9):847-57. doi: 10.1177/1545968314567968. Epub 2015 Jan 20. PubMed 25605632 ↗
09

Updates

Tracking since Sep 25, 2026
No changes since tracking began. The registry record was last updated on May 13, 2015, before this site started recording changes on Sep 25, 2026. Its history is on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗
10

Registry details

Key details

Study ID
NCT01521234
Lead sponsor
Toronto Rehabilitation Institute
Responsible party
Avril Mansfield (Post-doctoral fellow, Toronto Rehabilitation Institute) — Principal investigator
First posted
Jan 30, 2012
Start date
Oct 2012
Primary completion
Jan 2014
Completion
Jun 2014
Last update
May 13, 2015

Study contacts

Avril Mansfield, PhD
principal investigator · Toronto Rehabilitation Institute

Oversight

Data monitoring committee
No
View the source record on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗

Not currently enrolling

This study is completed, as verified in May 2015. You cannot join it, but the record below documents what was studied.

Follow this study

Get an email when the registry record changes — status, dates, results — or when someone posts here.

Sign in to follow

Discussion

Questions and observations about this study, from anyone following it. Not medical advice, and not a channel to the study team — their contact details are on the registry record.

Sign in to join the discussion. Reading takes no account; posting does. You choose a display name, and a pseudonym is the default.

Nothing here yet. If you are running this trial, taking part in it, or weighing whether to, this is the place to say so.

Start the discussion