Table 4.
Summary results | Conclusions | Suggestions |
---|---|---|
Definition of mobility | ||
● Generally includes the terms movement and ability to move but varies on conditions. Strong agreement: ● A clear and standardised definition of mobility is useful to me. ● Mobility is broadly defined as the ability to move oneself. ● Mobility includes the use of assistive devices (e.g. wheelchair). Moderate agreement: ● Mobility includes the context of travel/commuting. Low agreement: ● Mobility is clearly defined. ● Mobility in standardized settings (e.g. lab or clinical environment) requires a different definition than mobility in a daily life environment. |
● No uniform definition. ● Generally includes the terms movement and ability to move. ● Variability between definitions regarding the conditions. |
● Define mobility as the ability to move, with or without the use of assistive devices. ● Specify conditions if any applied, i.e. the form of movement (e.g. walking, exercising, travel/ commuting), the role of the environment (e.g. ideal conditions, daily life). |
Conceptual framework | ||
● Conceptual frameworks differ in how they conceptualise mobility and the included components. ● A third of respondents used a conceptual framework to assess mobility; the ICF was most often used. Strong agreement: ● A clear conceptual framework defining constructs and measures is required to determine mobility. ● Mobility related constructs can be aligned with individual ICF components within the components of body functions and structures, activities and participation, environmental factors, and personal factors. Moderate agreement: ● A conceptual framework is useful to me. ● To define mobility, ICF offers a useful basic conceptual framework for research. Low agreement: ● For health professionals, the WHO ICF is a suitable framework to determine mobility. ● For researchers, the WHO ICF is a suitable framework to determine mobility. |
● Multiple conceptual frameworks are available in the literature with variability in how mobility is conceptualised. ● There is a need for a clear conceptual framework for mobility. ● There were conflicting opinions between both questionnaires on the suitability of the ICF as a framework to determine mobility. |
● No recommendations can be made on a conceptual framework to determine the physical domain of mobility ● Use of the ICF framework to classify constructs in the components ‘body functions and structures’ and ‘activity and participation’, reflecting capacity and performance. |
Constructs | ||
● Ninety-two unique constructs of mobility were reported. ● Median scores of the relevance of multiple constructs were similar (varied between 6 and 9]. ● Only ambulation, gait function, (instrumental) activities of daily living and physical activity were identified as moderately relevant ● None of the other constructs was identified as very or moderately relevant. |
● Mobility encompasses multiple constructs. ● Variability in the classification and identification of constructs. |
● Define if physical capacity and/or physical performance was assessed and how it was measured. |
Strong agreement: ● Mobility is determined by multiple constructs requiring different measurements. ● Classification of muscle function under body functions and structures. |
● Physical capacity and physical performance are different constructs with different definitions. ● Classification under capacity or performance depends on how it is measured. |
● Physical capacity is defined by measurements under standardized/ideal conditions and represents the ‘can do,‘ i.e. what a person is maximally capable of. |
● Physical capacity and physical performance are different constructs. ● The ‘can do’ and ‘do’ (i.e. what a person can do and what a person actually does in their daily life) are separate constructs of mobility. ● Capacity is representing the ‘can do,‘ i.e. what a person is maximally capable of. ● Performance is defined by measurements embedded within a (daily) task/activity. ● The term physical performance is often used instead of physical capacity; this terminology should be used appropriately to avoid confusion. ● The term function means the same as the term capacity. ● Muscle function is an umbrella term for muscle strength, muscle power and muscle endurance. Moderate agreement: ● An overview of constructs of mobility is useful to me. ● Classification of muscle quality under body functions and structures. ● Physical performance is defined by what a person actually does in his or her environment. ● A construct should be classified under capacity or performance within the ICF depending on how it is measured. ● Capacity is defined by measurements under standardized/ideal conditions. ● Performance is representing the ‘do’ i.e. what a person actually does in their daily life. ● The terms function and functioning have different definitions. Low agreement: ● Constructs and measurements to determine mobility are well-defined. ● Physical activity is an important construct of mobility. ● Muscle status is an important construct of mobility. |
● Terminology of capacity and performance is used interchangeably. ● The term function is not defined and depends on what type of function is referred to (e.g. physical function, muscle function) ● The terms function and functioning differ in their definitions. |
● Physical performance is defined by measurements embedded within a (daily) task/activity and represents the ‘do’ i.e. what a person actually does in their daily life. ● Define the terms function and functioning in terms of body functions, capacity or performance in relation to the type and environment of function(ing) assessed. |
● Classification of all other constructs. ● Physical capacity is defined by what an individual can do in a standardised environment. ● The term function refers to body functions. ● Physical function is an umbrella term for lower extremity function, upper extremity function, back and neck function, and (instrumental) activities of daily living. ● Muscle function can also be termed muscle capacity. ● Muscle function can also be termed muscle quality. |
● Constructs within the physical domain of mobility need to be further identified, defined and classified. | |
Measures | ||
● Eighty-nine unique measures of mobility were reported. Strong agreement: ● A core-set of mobility measures is useful to me. ● Potential data sharing or use of other one’s data for mobility related research is useful to me. Moderate agreement: ● A core-set of mobility measures should be used for mobility both as a determinant or outcome. Low agreement: ● Determining mobility requires a standardised core-set of measures. ● Mobility should be measured differently dependent on whether mobility is considered a determinant or outcome. |
● Mobility is measured using multiple measures. ● A core-set of mobility is useful for researchers and/or clinicians, also in order to potentially share data in a standardised way. |
● A core-set of measures should include the measure and the format of assessment to subsequently link them to the appropriate constructs. |
WHO: World Health Organization. ICF: International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health