From: A systematic review of studies using pedometers as an intervention for musculoskeletal diseases
Study | Objectives | Sample and Design | Pedometer intervention | Mean steps per day | Result |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
and (pedometers used) | |||||
RCT | To compare the effectiveness of two walking programs in combination with GS on OA symptom and PA in patient with hip or knee OA | -36 participants (age = 42-73), randomized into two intervention groups | From 0 to 6 weeks both groups received GS. | between week 6 and 18 (3920 – 6683) steps in both groups | No differences between groups in step/day/(P = .07). Significant improvements in pain (P = .001) and physical function (P = .001) for both groups |
Group A: From 7 to12 weeks received GS + pedometer and walking up to 3000 steps/day | |||||
- Group A n = 19 (walking 3 days /week) | |||||
Ng et al.[50] | |||||
From 13–18 weeks received GS + pedometer and walking up to 6000 steps/day Group B: same group A but walking 5 day/week | Pedometer: not mentioned | ||||
-Group B n = 17 (walking 5 days/week ) | |||||
program lasted 12 weeks | |||||
RCT | To determine whether a pedometer program with arthritis self-management would increase PA and muscle strength in subject with OA of knee. | -34 participants with knee OA (age = 60 and older) | Both groups received 12 hours arthritis self-management education (UDE) over 12 weeks | Education group ( 4652–3972) | Significant differences between groups in PA (P = .04), and muscle strength (P = .04) with no significant in pain (P = .95) |
- randomized into two groups. | Pedometer group (3519–4337) | ||||
Talbot et al.[51] | Pedometer group received instruction to increase their step count by 10% every 4 weeks from their baseline step count with feedback and exercise materials. | ||||
pedometer group n = 17 | |||||
Pedometer: New Lifesty- les Digi-walker SW-200, Yamax, Japan | |||||
education group n = 17 | |||||
program lasted 12 weeks | |||||
RCT | To compare pedometer program vs. an education program on health status and PA levels in adult with Fibromyalgia syndrome (FS). | -48 adults age (48–52 years), randomized into | Pedometer group; received 90 min cognitive behavioral program × 2 per weeks for 12 weeks. from week 1 participants were asked to increase 10- min walking every week to reach 30 min by week 5 control group: received 90 min cognitive behavioral program once a month for 12 weeks | pedometer group (2337–3970), no steps for control group | Significant increase in PA for intervention (P = .001). No significant differences between groups in pain (P = .060), fatigue (P = .85) and six-min walk (P = .92) at 6 weeks |
Pedometer: Accusplit® Eagle Activity Pedometer | |||||
-pedometer n = 22 | |||||
-Control group n = 26 | |||||
Fontaine, & Haaz[49] | program lasted 6 weeks | ||||
RCT | To determine the variable most closely related to symptomatic | -40 women mean age (63.5), randomized into intervention group n = 22 control group n = 18 The program lasted 6 weeks | Both groups received drugs (NSAID) for 4 weeks before study. | intervention (N/R -7500 steps) control (N/R-7300 steps) | No significant differences between groups in steps (P = 0.86) at 6 weeks. Correlation significant between steps and relief pain (P = .003) |
Intervention group: received 0.5 mg Mazindol once per day plus the NSAID twice a day, and instructed to wear a pedometer to walk 30 min each day for 6 weeks | |||||
relief of OA of knee in response to a weight | |||||
Toda et al.[52] | control and walking program. | Control group: received same the intervention group but without any instruction or feedback on pedometer. | Pedometer: Seiko, Tokyo, Japan | ||
RCT | To examine the feasibility of 8 weeks pedometer with education materials on CLBP patients | 57 participants (age 42-60), randomized into two groups | Both groups received a single 1 hour education session. | Intervention group: (5563–8339) | Participants in intervention increased their step count from baseline by 2776 (95% CI, 1996–3557) and improvements in pain score(ODQ) by 8.2% (CI, -13-3.4) at 6 weeks |
Pedometer group n = 40 | Control group: not reported | ||||
Pedometer group: in week 1, 10 min self-efficacy walk completed. Week 2, meeting to provide step target, between week 3 and 8 weekly phoned to discuss the progress. This program was based on 5A,s framework including 1. ask/assesses barriers to PA, 2. advise to increase PA, 3. change walking goals, 4. address barriers with feedback, 5. regular feedback. | |||||
Control group n = 17 | |||||
Pedometer: Yamax, Digi walker CW-701, Japan | |||||
program lasted 8 weeks | |||||
McDonough et al.[53] | |||||
RCT | To determine whether a pedometer-based internet can reduce CLBP | 229 participants (age 51.9 ± 12.8), randomized into two groups | Intervention received pedometer and access to a website which provided feedback, goal setting, motivational messages and social support | Intervention(4492–5370) Control (4322–4682) | No significant differences between groups in steps at 6 and 12 months respectively (P = .12, and P = .08). Significant difference between groups in RDQ scores (P = .02) at 6 month, and non-significant at 12 months (P = .07) |
Intervention n = 111 | |||||
Krein et al.[54] | Control n = 118 | Control group received pedometer without access to intervention website | Pedometer: Omron HJ-720ITC | ||
RCT | To examine whether a walking exercise can improves the dual-task performance in older adults with knee OA | 40 participants , randomized into two groups | Both groups attended one session of physical therapy once a week, and also received ice therapy, exercises for range of motion and muscle strength at home every day. | Walking group (4453–7285) | Significant increase in PA for intervention (P = .001). Participants in intervention group significantly improved their functional disability and pain (P < 0.001, and P < 0.001 respectively) |
Control group(4425–4207) | |||||
Walking group n = 20 (age 71.9 ± 5.2) | |||||
Hiyama et al.[55] | |||||
Pedometer:KenzLifecoder EX, Suzuken Co, Ltd, Japan | |||||
In addition, walking group received pedometer with instruction to increase their steps to 3000 steps more than their baseline | |||||
Control group n = 20 (age 73.8 ± 5.7) | |||||
program lasted 4 weeks |