Background The 6-minute walk test (6MWT) is a commonly used method to assess the exercise capacity of people with many health conditions, including persistent pain. However, it is conventionally performed with in-person supervision in a hospital or clinic, therefore requiring staff resources. It may also be difficult when in-person supervision is unavailable, such as during the COVID-19 pandemic, or when the person is geographically remote. A potential solution to these issues could be to use GPS to measure walking distance. Objective The primary aim of this study was to assess the validity of a GPS-based smartphone app to measure walking distance as an alternative to the conventional 6MWT in a population with persistent pain. The secondary aim of this study was to estimate the difference between the pain evoked by the 2 test methods. Methods People with persistent pain (N=36) were recruited to complete a conventional 6MWT on a 30-m shuttle track and a 6MWT assessed by a smartphone app using GPS, performed on outdoor walking circuits. Tests were performed in random order, separated by a 15-minute rest. The 95% limits of agreement were calculated using the Bland-Altman method, with a specified maximum allowable difference of 100 m. Pain was assessed using an 11-point numerical rating scale before and after each walk test. Results The mean 6-minute walk distance measured by the GPS-based smartphone app was 13.2 (SD 46; 95% CI −2.7 to 29.1) m higher than that assessed in the conventional manner. The 95% limits of agreement were 103.9 (95% CI 87.4-134.1) m and −77.6 (95% CI −107.7 to −61) m, which exceeded the maximum allowable difference. Pain increased in the conventional walk test by 1.1 (SD 1.0) points, whereas pain increased in the app test by 0.8 (SD 1.4) points. Conclusions In individuals with persistent pain, the 2 methods of assessing the 6MWT may not be interchangeable due to limited validity. Potential reasons for the differences between the 2 methods might be attributed to the variation in track layout (shuttle track vs continuous circuit); poor GPS accuracy; deviations from the 30-m shuttle track; human variability in walking speed; and the potential impact of a first test on the second test due to fatigue, pain provocation, or a learning effect. Future research is needed to improve the accuracy of the GPS-based approach. Despite its limitations, the GPS-based 6MWT may still have value as a tool for remote monitoring that could allow individuals with persistent pain to self-administer frequent assessments of their functional capacity in their home environment.
Abstract Objectives The six‐minute walk test (6MWT) is a commonly used measure of functional capacity. This study is the first to investigate the test‐retest reliability, minimal detectable difference (MDD) and the minimal clinically important difference (MCID) for people attending a persistent pain service. Relationships between change in 6MWT performance and change in self‐reported physical, functional and psychological outcome measures were also explored. Methods A cross‐sectional repeated measures design was used with people having >9 months of pain attending an 8‐week outpatient persistent pain programme. For reliability and MDD, 27 people were recruited, for MCID calculations, 32 people were recruited. The MCID was examined by dichotomising people into “improvers”, or “non‐improvers” based upon the Global Rating of Change (GRC) in physical abilities score. Results The mean (SD) 6MWT distance was 389.4 (93.6) m at programme start, and 427.8 (83.0) m at week eight completion. The test‐retest reliability was good (intraclass correlation coefficient = 0.89) and the MDD = 86.1 m. As there was no relationship between change in 6MWT distance and GRC physical abilities at week eight ( r = 0.132, p = 0.472) the MCID could not be calculated. Furthermore, no relationships were found between change in 6MWT distance and other self‐reported measures. Changes in GRC physical abilities and 6MWT were frequently discordant, with increased 6MWT for 7/11 “GRC non‐improvers” and decreased 6MWT for 7/21 “GRC improvers”. Conclusions Amongst this cohort, change in physical ability may or may not be reflected by self‐reported change. Objective tests of physical ability are recommended for people attending pain services, and validated tests should align with intervention aims.
Objectives: To evaluate the effect of combining pain education and virtual reality exposure therapy using a cognitive behavioural therapy-informed approach (VR-CBT) on pain intensity, fear of movement, and trunk movement, in individuals with persistent low back pain. Methods: Thirty-seven participants were recruited in a single cohort repeated measures study, attending three sessions one week apart. The VR-CBT intervention included standardised pain education (Session 1), and virtual reality exposure therapy (Session 2) incorporating gameplay with mixed reality video capture and reflective feedback of performance. Outcome measures (Pain intensity, pain-related fear of movement (Tampa Scale of Kinesiophobia), and trunk kinematics during functional movements (maximum amplitude, peak velocity) were collected at baseline (Session1), and one week following education (Session 2) and virtual reality exposure therapy (Session 3). One-way repeated measures ANOVAs evaluated change in outcomes from baseline to completion. Post-hoc contrasts evaluated effect sizes for the education and virtual reality components of VR-CBT. Results: Thirty-four participants completed all sessions. Significant ( P <0.001) reductions were observed in Mean(SD) pain (baseline 5.9(1.5); completion 4.3(2.1)) and fear of movement (baseline 42.6(6.4); completion 34.3(7.4)). Large effect sizes (Cohen’s d ) were observed for education (pain intensity 0.85; fear of movement 1.28) while the addition of virtual reality exposure therapy demonstrated very small insignificant effect sizes, (pain intensity 0.10; fear of movement 0.18). Peak trunk velocity, but not amplitude, increased significantly ( P <0.05) across trunk movement tasks. Discussion: A VR-CBT intervention improved pain, pain-related fear of movement, and trunk kinematics. Further research should explore increased VR-CBT dosage and mechanisms underlying improvement.
BACKGROUND The 6-minute walk test (6MWT) is a commonly used method to assess the exercise capacity of people with many health conditions, including persistent pain. However, it is conventionally performed with in-person supervision in a hospital or clinic, therefore requiring staff resources. It may also be difficult when in-person supervision is unavailable, such as during the COVID-19 pandemic, or when the person is geographically remote. A potential solution to these issues could be to use GPS to measure walking distance. OBJECTIVE The primary aim of this study was to assess the validity of a GPS-based smartphone app to measure walking distance as an alternative to the conventional 6MWT in a population with persistent pain. The secondary aim of this study was to estimate the difference between the pain evoked by the 2 test methods. METHODS People with persistent pain (N=36) were recruited to complete a conventional 6MWT on a 30-m shuttle track and a 6MWT assessed by a smartphone app using GPS, performed on outdoor walking circuits. Tests were performed in random order, separated by a 15-minute rest. The 95% limits of agreement were calculated using the Bland-Altman method, with a specified maximum allowable difference of 100 m. Pain was assessed using an 11-point numerical rating scale before and after each walk test. RESULTS The mean 6-minute walk distance measured by the GPS-based smartphone app was 13.2 (SD 46; 95% CI −2.7 to 29.1) m higher than that assessed in the conventional manner. The 95% limits of agreement were 103.9 (95% CI 87.4-134.1) m and −77.6 (95% CI −107.7 to −61) m, which exceeded the maximum allowable difference. Pain increased in the conventional walk test by 1.1 (SD 1.0) points, whereas pain increased in the app test by 0.8 (SD 1.4) points. CONCLUSIONS In individuals with persistent pain, the 2 methods of assessing the 6MWT may not be interchangeable due to limited validity. Potential reasons for the differences between the 2 methods might be attributed to the variation in track layout (shuttle track vs continuous circuit); poor GPS accuracy; deviations from the 30-m shuttle track; human variability in walking speed; and the potential impact of a first test on the second test due to fatigue, pain provocation, or a learning effect. Future research is needed to improve the accuracy of the GPS-based approach. Despite its limitations, the GPS-based 6MWT may still have value as a tool for remote monitoring that could allow individuals with persistent pain to self-administer frequent assessments of their functional capacity in their home environment.
'/%3e%3c/defs%3e%3cpath fill='%23012169' d='M0 0h10080v5040H0z'/%3e%3cpath stroke='%23fff' stroke-width='.6' d='m0 0 6 3m0-3L0 3' clip-path='url(%23b)' transform='scale(840)'/%3e%3cpath stroke='%23e4002b' stroke-width='.4' d='m0 0 6 3m0-3L0 3' clip-path='url(%23c)' transform='scale(840)'/%3e%3cpath stroke='%23fff' stroke-width='840' d='M2520 0v2520M0 1260h5040'/%3e%3cpath stroke='%23e4002b' stroke-width='504' d='M2520 0v2520M0 1260h5040'/%3e%3cg fill='%23fff'%3e%3cuse xlink:href='%23d' x='2520' y='3780'/%3e%3cuse xlink:href='%23a' x='7560' y='4200'/%3e%3cuse xlink:href='%23a' x='6300' y='2205'/%3e%3cuse xlink:href='%23a' x='7560' y='840'/%3e%3cuse xlink:href='%23a' x='8680' y='1869'/%3e%3cuse xlink:href='%23e' x='8064' y='2730'/%3e%3c/g%3e%3c/svg%3e)
'/%3e%3c/defs%3e%3cpath fill='%23fff' d='M-120-80h240V80h-240z'/%3e%3cpath d='M-120-80h240v48h-240z'/%3e%3cpath fill='%23060' d='M-120 32h240v48h-240z'/%3e%3cg id='b'%3e%3cuse xlink:href='%23a' stroke='%23000'/%3e%3cuse xlink:href='%23a' fill='%23fff'/%3e%3c/g%3e%3cuse xlink:href='%23b' transform='scale(-1 1)'/%3e%3cpath fill='%23b00' d='M-120-24v48h101c3 8 13 24 19 24s16-16 19-24h101v-48H19C16-32 6-48 0-48s-16 16-19 24z'/%3e%3cpath id='c' d='M19 24c3-8 5-16 5-24s-2-16-5-24c-3 8-5 16-5 24s2 16 5 24'/%3e%3cuse xlink:href='%23c' transform='scale(-1 1)'/%3e%3cg fill='%23fff'%3e%3cellipse rx='4' ry='6'/%3e%3cpath id='d' d='M1 5.85s4 8 4 21-4 21-4 21z'/%3e%3cuse xlink:href='%23d' transform='scale(-1)'/%3e%3cuse xlink:href='%23d' transform='scale(-1 1)'/%3e%3cuse xlink:href='%23d' transform='scale(1 -1)'/%3e%3c/g%3e%3c/svg%3e)