Measures of movement and mobility used in clinical practice and research: a scoping review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT Objective: The first objective of this scoping review was to identify all the tools designed to measure movement or mobility in adults. The second objective was to compare the tools to the conceptual definitions of movement and mobility by mapping them to the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF). Introduction: The concepts of movement and mobility are distinct concepts that are often conflated, and the differences are important to patient care. Movement is a change in the place or position of a part of the body or of the whole body. Mobility is derived from movement and is defined as the ability to move with ease. Researchers and clinicians, including nurses, physiotherapists, and occupational therapists who work with adults and in rehabilitation, need to be confident that they are measuring the outcome of interest. Inclusion criteria: This scoping review considered studies that included participants who are adults, aged 19 and older, with any level of ability or disability. The concepts of interest were tools that measured movement or mobility relative to the human body. Studies were considered regardless of country of origin, health care setting, or sociocultural setting. Methods: CINAHL, Health and Psychosocial Instruments, MEDLINE, and Embase were searched in June 2018 and OpenGrey, Dissertation Abstracts International, and Google Scholar were searched in November 2018. The searches were limited to articles in English, and the date range was from the inception of the database to the current date. Data were extracted from the studies using a custom data extraction tool. Once tools were identified for analysis, they were coded using the table format developed by Cieza and colleagues. Results: There were 702 unique tools identified, with 651 of them available to be coded for the ICF. There were 385 ICF codes used when coding the tools. From these codes, the percentage of codes of the defining attributes of movement and mobility that were covered could be calculated, as well as the percentage of tool items that were linked to the antecedents, consequences, or defining attributes of movement or mobility. Conclusions: Although there are many tools that measure only movement or mobility, there are many that measure a mixture of the defining attributes as well as the antecedents and consequences. The tool name alone should not be considered a guarantee of the concept measured, and tool selection should be done with a critical eye. This study provides a starting point from which clinicians and researchers can find tools that measure the concepts of movement and mobility of interest and importance to their patient population.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.014 | 0.096 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".