Skip to main content
NIHPA Author Manuscripts logoLink to NIHPA Author Manuscripts
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2023 Oct 1.
Published in final edited form as: Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2022 Jun 30;103(10):1992–2000. doi: 10.1016/j.apmr.2022.06.002

Multimodal Ambulatory Monitoring of Daily Activity and Health-Related Symptoms in Community-Dwelling Survivors of Stroke: Feasibility, Acceptability, and Validity

Stephen CL Lau a, Lisa Tabor Connor a,b, Allison A King a,c,d,e,f, Carolyn M Baum a,b,g
PMCID: PMC10338086  NIHMSID: NIHMS1912534  PMID: 35780826

Abstract

Objective:

To examine the feasibility, acceptability, and validity of multimodal ambulatory monitoring, which combines accelerometry with ecological momentary assessment (EMA), to assess daily activity and health-related symptoms among survivors of stroke.

Design:

Prospective cohort study involving 7 days of ambulatory monitoring; participants completed 8 daily EMA surveys about daily activity and symptoms (mood, cognitive complaints, fatigue, pain) while wearing an accelerometer. Participants also completed retrospective assessments and an acceptability questionnaire.

Setting:

Community.

Participants:

Forty survivors of stroke (N=40).

Interventions:

Not applicable.

Main Outcome Measures:

Feasibility was determined using attrition rate and compliance. Acceptability was reported using the acceptability questionnaire. Convergent and discriminant validity were determined by the correlations between ambulatory monitoring and retrospective self-reports. Criterion validity was determined by the concordance between accelerometer-measured and EMA-reported daily activity.

Results:

All participants completed the study (attrition rate=0%). EMA and accelerometer compliance were 93.6 % and 99.7%, respectively. Participants rated their experience with multimodal ambulatory monitoring positively. They were highly satisfied (mean, 4.8/5) and confident (mean, 4.7/5) in using ambulatory monitoring and preferred it over traditional retrospective assessments (mean, 4.7/5). Multimodal ambulatory monitoring estimates correlated with retrospective self-reports of the same and opposing constructs in the predicted directions (r=−0.66 to 0.72, P<.05). More intense accelerometer-measured physical activity was observed when participants reported doing more physically demanding activities and vice versa.

Conclusions:

Findings support the feasibility, acceptability, and validity of multimodal ambulatory monitoring in survivors of mild stroke. Multimodal ambulatory monitoring has potential to provide a more complete understanding of survivors’ daily activity in the context of everyday life.

Keywords: Accelerometry, Ecological momentary assessment, Outcome assessment (health care), Rehabilitation, Stroke, Telemedicine


Stroke remains a leading cause of long-term disability in the United States, producing a variety of symptoms that interfere with daily life experiences of survivors of stroke.1-3 Increasing daily physical activity intensity and minimizing sedentary behavior are recommended by the American Stroke Association for mitigating stroke symptoms and risks for stroke recurrence.4,5 The American Stroke Association statements4,5 have underlined the benefits of physical activity for survivors of stroke, including improved mood,6 cognitive function,7 and quality of life.8 Despite the extensive benefits, survivors of stroke are more sedentary than populations with other chronic diseases.9,10

Activity patterns fluctuate during the day because of changes in activity type and biopsychological factors (eg, pain, depression),11 and yet most stroke studies have relied on retrospective questionnaires and laboratory-based performance tests to study daily activity participation.12-14 Retrospective questionnaires require recalling past experiences and are thus prone to recall biases.15,16 Cognitive impairment after stroke further increases the odds of recall errors, thereby limiting the accuracy of retrospective measures.17 Psychosocial factors (eg, self-awareness and social desirability) also contribute to under- and overestimation of physical activity.18,19 Laboratory-based tests, often conducted in a controlled or artificial environment, lack ecological validity and only provide a snapshot of functioning at specific times.20,21

With technological advancement, ambulatory assessments such as accelerometry and ecological momentary assessment (EMA) have emerged to overcome these limitations. Accelerometry provides continuous and objective recording of activity patterns throughout the course of everyday life22.23; however, it alone is unable to capture the contextual and biopsychological information about activity behavior. This information is important for understanding why people are active and inactive. EMA involves real-time, repeated sampling of a person’s mood, health-related symptoms and other experiences via electronic surveys in natural environments.24,25 Compared with traditional survey methods, EMA enhances ecological validity, minimizes recall bias, and allows for investigations of dynamic patterns of behavioral change over time.24,25 EMA overcomes the geographic and time barriers that prevail in traditional in-person assessments, reducing administrative costs and enhancing flexibility.26 Thus, multimodal ambulatory monitoring, in which passive, objective accelerometry is coupled with active, subjective EMA, has potential to elucidate daily activities.27,28

The promise of multimodal ambulatory monitoring is based on the presumption that it is feasible, valid, and acceptable. Thus far, we are aware of 1 study that validated the use of accelerometry for monitoring physical activity during inpatient stroke rehabilitation,29 and another study validated the use of EMA for assessing symptoms in hospitalized patients with stroke.30 A recent study supported the combined use of accelerometry and EMA in community-dwelling survivors of stroke, but it focused on the paretic arm and/or hand use instead of everyday activity participation.31

The primary aim of the study was to determine the feasibility, acceptability, and validity of multimodal ambulatory monitoring to assess daily activity and health-related symptoms among community-dwelling survivors of stroke. Secondarily, we sought to inform the potential for the research and clinical application of multimodal ambulatory monitoring in the population with stroke.

Methods

Participants

Survivors of stroke were recruited from a hospital database of individuals from an urban population in St. Louis living at home in their own community. Inclusion criteria included age 18-65 years, mild to moderate stroke (National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale≤15),32 at least 3 months post stroke, premorbid modified Rankin scale ≤2,33 owning a smartphone, and being able to provide reliable yes/no responses.34 Exclusion criteria were previous neurologic or psychiatric disorder, severe apraxia (Apraxia Screen of Test for Upper-Limb Apraxia <6),35 evidence of neglect (Star Cancellation Test ≤44),36 impaired vision (Lighthouse Near Visual Acuity Test ≤20/100 corrected vision),37 conditions that preclude moderate to vigorous physical activity participation, and hearing impairment (sound repetition screens >4).38 We excluded users of wheeled mobility devices because of using a thigh-worn accelerometer. The Institutional Review Board approved the study, and all participants provided written informed consent.

Study procedure

During the preambulatory monitoring visit, participants completed screening and assessments as part of a larger investigation. Participants installed the Participation in Everyday Life (PIEL) Survey App39 on their smartphones for EMA and were fitted with an accelerometer on the anterior unaffected thigh using a waterproof dressing. Participants were instructed to wear the accelerometer continuously and received logs to document any accelerometer nonwear periods and daily wake and sleep times. Participants received training and an instruction manual about the PIEL Surveys App and the accelerometer and practiced under supervision until mastery was achieved.

Seven-day ambulatory monitoring began the following day. Participants were prompted with auditory signals and vibrations to complete 8 EMA surveys, randomly distributed at 2-hour intervals from 8 AM to 10 PM, for 7 consecutive days. Each survey took less than 2 minutes and stayed open for 30 minutes after the initial prompt, with up to 3 reminders every 10 minutes if no response was received. This sampling schedule aligns with the current literature21,40-43 and allows a comprehensive capture of daily activities while meeting the recommendations for monitoring free-living physical activity in adults.44-47 Participants were contacted on the second and fifth day to check in and encourage compliance. A helpline was available for reporting problems or making inquiries.

Upon completion, participants returned to the laboratory to return study equipment, transfer data, and complete additional assessments.

Measures

Accelerometry

The activPALa provides physical activity monitoring and has been used and validated in the population with stroke.48-50 It provides an accurate classification of physical activity intensity in healthy adults.51,52 It is a small and lightweight thigh-worn accelerometer with a dynamic range of ±2 gravitational units. It responds to gravitational accelerations from segmental movement53 and captures acceleration at a sampling rate of 20 Hz. Proprietary algorithms in the activPAL software integrate the static and acceleration data to estimate energy expenditure (metabolic equivalent [MET]), with which the intensity of activity can be categorized as sedentary (1≤MET<2), light (2≤MET<3), or moderate to vigorous (MET≥3). The METs of EMA-reported daily activities were estimated based on the average METs captured in the 20-minute window (±10 minutes) around the EMA prompt when the activity was reported.51,54,55 The activPAL has been shown to provide an accurate and valid estimation of physical activity intensity against direct observation in the free-living environment.51 To identify nonwear time, accelerometer data were screened for periods of nonwear based on participants’ wear logs, which were cross-checked against the heat map visualization of the individuals’ activPAL data.

EMA survey

The EMA survey captures daily activity and health-related symptoms. The daily activity item (“What are you doing?”) captures participants’ current activities from a list of 44 daily activities, developed based on validated EMA surveys21,56 and the Activity Card Sort.57 According to the Activity Card Sort, activities were categorized into 4 domains (instrumental activities of daily living [eg, shopping], high-physical-demand leisure activities [eg, gardening], low-physical-demand leisure activities [eg, watching TV], and social activities [eg, visiting family or friends]), and an additional domain of activities of daily living (eg, toileting) was included.

Six single-item questions assessed depressed mood (“Right now, I feel depressed”), cognitive complaints (“Right now, my thinking is slow”), cheerfulness (“Right now, I feel cheerful”), physical (“Physically, I feel exhausted now”) and mental fatigue (“Mentally, I feel exhausted now”), and pain (“What is your level of pain right now?”). These questions were selected from the Patient Health Questionnaire-9 (PHQ-9),58 Quality of Life in Neurological Disorders (Neuro-QoL) Cognition Function,59 Fatigue Assessment Scale,60 and Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System Pain Intensity.61 Pain was rated on a slider scale from 0 (no pain) to 10 (worst pain); others were rated on a 5-point scale from 1 (not at all) to 5 (very much).

Acceptability questionnaire

At the postambulatory monitoring visit, participants completed a survey, adapted from a previous study,11 assessing study acceptability (eg, overall experience as a participant), multimodal ambulatory monitoring acceptability (eg, ease of using mobile surveys/activity monitor), and reactivity (ie, alteration of behavior or feelings because of multimodal ambulatory monitoring).

Additional measures

Participants completed a battery of measures, including the PHQ-960 for assessing depression severity, the Neuro-QoL Cognition Function Short Form,59 the Fatigue Assessment Scale,60 the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System Pain intensity,61 the International Physical Activity Questionnaire–Long Form,62 the Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index,63 and the Charlson Comorbidity Index.64

Statistical analyses

Feasibility

Feasibility was evaluated based on the attrition rate and participants’ compliance with multimodal ambulatory monitoring. Accelerometer compliance was based on wear time and the number of valid days of accelerometer wearing over the entire monitoring period. A valid day of accelerometer wearing was defined as having at least 10 hours of wear time during waking hours65; EMA compliance was based on the EMA completion rate; multimodality compliance was based on the percentage of completed EMA surveys accompanied by valid accelerometer data.

Acceptability

Acceptability was based on descriptive analyses of participants’ responses to the acceptability questionnaire.

Validity

Convergent and discriminant validity were based on the correlations between multimodal ambulatory monitoring and the laboratory-based measures of the same and opposing constructs. Direct correspondence was not anticipated given the differences in real-time vs retrospective; however, there should be some degree of concordance between measures of the same or opposing construct.66 Criterion validity was based on the concordance between accelerometer-measured activity intensity and domain-specific daily activities assessed by EMA. To examine measurement reactivity, we compared the accelerometer data 10 minutes before and after the EMA prompt using independent t tests. A significant difference would suggest that the act of responding to EMA may have altered the ongoing activity.

Sample size consideration

A correlation coefficient of 0.50 or higher is expected between ambulatory monitoring and the laboratory-based measures of the same and opposing constructs.21,56,67 Based on a power analysis using G*power 3.70,68 a sample size of 29 was estimated to have 80% power to detect a correlation coefficient of 0.50. The study sample size of 40 had 91.5% power to detect a correlation coefficient of 0.5, with 2-sided α=0.05.

Results

Forty survivors of stroke were enrolled for the study. As shown in table 1, on average, participants were 62.8 years of age and mainly employed (n=25, 62.5%), had 14.7 years of education, and were distributed similarly across sex, race, and marital status. The majority were diagnosed with an ischemic stroke (n=28, 70.0%) and were 2083.3 days post stroke.

Table 1.

Participant characteristics

Characteristic Total (N=40) Range
Age, mean ± SD 52.80±7.48 35-65
Years of education, mean ± SD 14.73±2.21 10-20
Sex, n (%)
 Female 17 (42.5)
 Male 23 (57.5)
Race, n (%)
 White 22 (55.0)
 Black 18 (45.0)
Marital status, n (%)
 Married 19 (47.5)
 Unmarried 21 (52.5)
Employment, n (%)
 Employed 25 (62.5)
 Non-employed 15 (37.5)
Stroke type, n (%)
 Ischemic 28 (70.0)
 Hemorrhagic 12 (30.0)
CCI, mean ± SD* 4.15±2.96 1-14
Time post stroke (d), mean ± SD 2083.25±1168.00 399-4325
Premorbid mRS, mean ± SD 0.10±0.38 0-2
Admission NIHSS, n (%)
 0-5 Mild stroke 33 (82.5)
 6-15 Moderate stroke 7 (17.5)
Current NIHSS, n (%)*
 0-5 Mild stroke 40 (100)

Abbreviations: CCI, Charlson Comorbidity Index;mRS, Modified Rankin Scale;NIHSS, National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale.

*

At the time of study.

Feasibility

Participants completed the study with no attrition. The average EMA completion rate ranged from 76.8%-100%, with a mean of 93.6%. Twenty percent of the participants completed 100% of the scheduled EMA surveys, and 70% completed ≥90%. All participants achieved 7 valid days of wear, with an accelerometer compliance rate of 99.7%. Seventy-seven percent of the participants never removed the accelerometer during the study protocol. Regarding multimodality compliance, 99.8% of completed EMA surveys were accompanied by valid accelerometer data.

Acceptability

Figure 1 presents the results of the acceptability questionnaire (for descriptive statistics, see supplemental table S1). Nearly all participants (97.5%) rated their overall study experience as positive/very positive. Most participants were highly satisfied with and confident in using the study technology (mean satisfaction, 4.8/5; mean confidence, 4.7/5) and preferred it over traditional methods (ie, retrospective self-reports) (mean preference, 4.7/5). All participants rated the accelerometer as easy/very easy to use, and 97.5% rated the EMA as easy/very easy to use. Participants reported low interference of EMA (mean interference, 1.9/5) and accelerometer (mean interference, 1.3/5) with their daily routine.

Fig 1.

Fig 1

Acceptability ratings of multimodal ambulatory monitoring.

Validity

Table 2 reports the correlations between ambulatory and laboratory-based measures. Significant positive and negative correlations were observed in measures of the same and opposing constructs, respectively. For instance, the moderate to vigorous physical activity time captured by the accelerometer was positively correlated with the moderate to vigorous physical activity time assessed by the International Physical Activity Questionnaire-Long Form (r=0.51, P=.001) but negatively correlated with sitting time (r=−0.53, P<.001). Likewise, EMA-reported depressed mood (r=0.56, P<.001) was positively correlated with the PHQ-9, whereas cheerfulness was negatively correlated (r=−0.38, P=.016). The scatter plot matrixes of correlations are available in supplemental figs S1 and S2, and the descriptive statistics of the variables are available in supplemental table S2.

Table 2.

Correlations between multimodal ambulatory monitoring and traditional retrospective measures

Measure
Traditional Measure
Accelerometer-Measured Physical Activity
MVPA (min/wk) Light PA (min/wk) Sedentary Behavior (min/wk) Total MET (min/wk)
IPAQ MVPA (min/wk) 0.51* 0.43* −0.11 0.47*
IPAQ Sitting (min/wk) −0.53 −0.39 0.45* −0.29
IPAQ total MET (min/wk) 0.47* 0.50* −0.06 0.49*
Traditional measure EMA-Reported Health-Related Symptom
Depressed
mood
Cheerfulness Physical
Fatigue
Mental
Fatigue
Pain Cognitive
Complaint
Sleep
Quality
PHQ-9 0.56 −0.38 0.52* 0.53* 0.60 0.41* −0.56
FAS (physical) 0.28 −0.24 0.40 0.32 0.39 0.37 −0.35
FAS (mental) 0.34 −0.29 0.52* 0.54 0.37 0.33 −0.34
PROMIS Pain intensity 0.38 −0.14 0.51* 0.50* 0.72 0.45* −0.44*
NQ Cognitive function −0.43* 0.27 −0.66 −0.68 −0.48* −0.66 0.27
PSQI Global score 0.39 −0.30 0.43* 0.40 0.58 0.22 −0.52*

NOTE. For EMA items, mean scores across the monitoring period were aggregated for each individual.

Abbreviations: FAS, Fatigue Assessment Scale; IPAQ, International Physical Activity Questionnaire; MVPA, moderate to vigorous physical activity; NQ, Quality of Life in Neurological Disorders; PA, physical activity; PROMIS, Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System; PSQI, Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index.

*

P<.01.

P<.001.

P<.05.

Table 3 presents the accelerometer-measured physical activity intensity of EMA-reported daily activities. A higher portion of light (40%) and moderate to vigorous(10%) physical activity was recorded when participants reported doing more physically demanding activities (ie, high-physical-demand leisure activities), whereas a higher proportion of sedentary behavior (93%) was captured by the accelerometer when participants were engaged in less physically demanding activities (ie, low-physical demand leisure activities). Follow-up independent t tests with Bonferroni adjustment (α=0.0125 [0.05/4]) indicated that high-physical-demand leisure activities (1.79±0.79METs) had significantly higher METs than other activity domains, whereas low-physical-demand leisure activities(1.33±0.13METs) had significantly lower METs than the others(P<.001).

Table 3.

Physical activity intensity of domain-specific daily activities

EMA-Reported Daily Activity Accelerometer-Measured Physical Activity Intensity
Sedentary, n (%) Light, n (%) Moderate to Vigorous, n (%) MET Mean ± SD
Activities of daily living 210 (78) 60 (22) 0 (0) 1.41±0.16
Instrumental activities of daily living 475 (65) 258 (35) 0 (0) 1.47±0.22
Low-physical-demand leisure activities 629 (93) 51 (8) 0 (0) 1.33±0.13
High-physical-demand leisure activities 53 (50) 42 (40) 10 (10) 1.79±0.79
Social activities 234 (77) 71 (23) 0 (0) 1.40±0.16

Independent t tests found no significant changes in the accelerometer data recorded before vs after responding to an EMA survey (t[4163]=1.04, P=.299).

Discussion

Advancing the use of technology in rehabilitation assessment is a priority goal of the National Institutes of Health Research Plan on Rehabilitation.69 Mobile health technologies, including telecommunication follow-up, permit the study of individuals’ lived experience in their natural environments (urban and rural)70-72 and thus inform the development of interventions to support continued recovery after discharge. Multimodal ambulatory monitoring combining 2 mobile technologies, accelerometry and EMA, has potential to expand our understanding of changes in activity patterns in relation to contextual and biopsychological factors. Our findings suggest that multimodal ambulatory monitoring is feasible, valid, and acceptable to monitor activity behavior and health-related symptoms in community-dwelling survivors of stroke.

All participants completed the study and displayed high compliance with EMA (93.6%) and accelerometry (99.7%), and 99.8% of the EMA surveys were completed in conjunction with valid accelerometer recordings. The high compliance rate is consistent with studies using similar combined methodology31,73,74 and can be attributed to a number of facilitating factors inherent in the study design, including the training session for the study technology, user instruction manual, helpline, short EMA survey, check-in calls, and study compensation. Different from most EMA studies, the iOS- and Android-compatible PIEL Survey App allowed participants to use their smartphones for the study, which provided familiarity and convenience and eliminated the burden of carrying an extra assessment device. Accelerometer compliance was enhanced by the waterproof dressings, minimizing the need to take off the accelerometer for water activities. Moreover, nearly all participants rated the number of days to wear the accelerometer and the number of daily EMA surveys as not too many or too few. Taken together, the high retention and compliance suggest that the 7-day multimodal ambulatory monitoring was feasible and not overly burdensome for survivors of stroke.

Concurrent and discriminant validity were supported by the significant associations between multimodal ambulatory monitoring and the measures of the same and opposing constructs in the expected directions. As expected, we observed a trend of stronger associations between pairs measuring the same construct. For instance, EMA-reported cognitive complaints were correlated with Neuro-QoL Cognitive Function (r=−0.66, P<.001) more than other measures (r=0.22-0.45). Criterion validity was supported by the concordance between EMA-reported daily activities and the accelerometer data. Moderate to vigorous physical activity was captured by the accelerometer only when participants reported doing more physically demanding activities (ie, high-physical-demand leisure activities). In contrast, sedentary activity (93%) was captured when participants reported doing less physically demanding activities (ie, low-physical-demand leisure activities). The concordance between EMA-reported and accelerometer-measured daily activity suggests that survivors of stroke were capable of and accurate in reporting their current activity via EMA and that accelerometry was sensitive to differences in activity patterns associated with different daily activities. We also found no significant changes in accelerometer data before and after the EMA prompt, suggesting that the act of answering EMA did not influence the participants’ ongoing activity.

Acceptability was supported by positive feedback obtained from the acceptability questionnaire. Despite slight interference with daily routine, participants reported a very positive study experience and preferred ambulatory monitoring over other types of measures. Participants rated both EMA and the accelerometer as easy to use, which might explain their high satisfaction and confidence in using the multimodal ambulatory monitoring as well as their high compliance. Both the PIEL Survey App and the activPAL used in the current study were simple and required minimal handling: the PIEL Survey App runs automatically in the background and requires only one tap to enter the survey, whereas the activPAL was rated by the participants as very comfortable and has a battery that does not require charging during the 7 days. Regarding reactivity, all participants indicated that responding to EMA about symptoms did not influence their original symptoms. The majority (72.5%) indicated that wearing the accelerometer did not make them increase or decrease their physical activity; however, 10 participants (25%) indicated that wearing it made them aware of their physical activity and encouraged them to be more physically active.

Multimodal ambulatory monitoring can be of great value to research and clinical practice. It enables a more complete understanding of physical activity exerted during everyday life activities by supplementing movement data with contextual and biopsychological information that describes peoples’ behavior.28 The high sampling rate and ecological validity of multimodal ambulatory monitoring provide the abundance, precision, and temporal resolution of data needed for conducting advanced analyses (eg, multilevel modeling, machine learning, network analysis) to unravel the dynamics of behavior change within a person. Such information ultimately informs the development of mobile or just-in-time adaptive interventions.75

Study limitations

This study has limitations. Our sample only included adults with mild stroke and those younger than 65 years, limiting the generalizability of our findings to those with more severe stroke and elderly persons, who might face greater difficulty using the study technology. Future research should include and examine a broader population with stroke. Future studies should include users of wheeled devices and explore the use of wrist-worn accelerometers among them. The validity of the activPAL for classifying physical activity intensity has not been examined in the population with stroke and may result in over- or underestimation. Future studies should validate the activPAL because it offers a simple and usable tool to monitor the active and sedentary behaviors of survivors of stroke who need to increase their activity level to promote health. Moreover, we used interval-contingent EMA, which might fail to capture rare behaviors and the peaks of physical activity. An interactive approach, in which an EMA prompt is triggered when the phenomenon of interest (eg, physical activity) exceeds a certain threshold can be used to address this limitation and enhance the variation of data.27 Additionally, all participants were smartphone users, whose preexisting experience likely facilitated their use of the study technology compared with someone who does not have a smartphone.

Conclusions

Multimodal ambulatory monitoring that combines accelerometry with EMA is a feasible, valid, and acceptable approach for monitoring daily activity and health-related symptoms among community-dwelling survivors of mild stroke. Multimodal ambulatory monitoring has potential to provide a more complete understanding of daily activity. The findings of this study provide the framework for the future development of mobile interventions to promote healthy behavior change and support continued recovery in the community.

Supplier

a. activPAL; PAL Technologies Ltd, Glasgow, Scotland.

Supplementary Material

Supplementary material

Acknowledgments

Supported by the Program in Occupational Therapy Dissertation Fund, Washington University in St. Louis.

List of abbreviations:

EMA

ecological momentary assessment

MET

metabolic equivalent

Neuro-QoL

Quality of Life in Neurological Disorders

PHQ-9

Patient Health Questionnaire-9

PIEL

Participation in Everyday Life

PSQI

Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index

Footnotes

Disclosures: Allison A. King received consulting payment from Global Blood Therapeutics planning a clinical trial unrelated to this project. Other authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  • 1.Mukherjee D, Levin RL, Heller W. The cognitive, emotional, and social sequelae of stroke: psychological and ethical concerns in post-stroke adaptation. Top Stroke Rehabil 2006;13:26–235. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Jones TA. Motor compensation and its effects on neural reorganization after stroke. Nat Rev Neurosci 2017;18:267–80. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Virani SS, Alonso A, Aparicio HJ, et al. Heart disease and stroke statistics—2021 update: a report from the American Heart Association. Circulation 2021;143:254–743. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Kernan WN, Ovbiagele B, Black HR, et al. Guidelines for the prevention of stroke in patients with stroke and transient ischemic attack: a guideline for healthcare professionals from the American Heart Association/American Stroke Association. Stroke 2014;45:2160–236. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Billinger SA, Arena R, Bernhardt J, et al. Physical activity and exercise recommendations for stroke survivors: a statement for healthcare professionals from the American Heart Association/American Stroke Association. Stroke 2014;45:2532–53. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Graven C, Brock K, Hill K, Joubert L. Are rehabilitation and/or care co-ordination interventions delivered in the community effective in reducing depression, facilitating participation and improving quality of life after stroke? Disabil Rehabil 2011;33:1501–20. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Cumming TB, Tyedin K, Churilov L, Morris ME, Bernhardt J. The effect of physical activity on cognitive function after stroke: a systematic review. Int Psychogeriatr 2012;24:557–67. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Chen MD, Rimmer JH. Effects of exercise on quality of life in stroke survivors: a meta-analysis. Stroke 2011;42:832–7. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.English C, Manns PJ, Tucak C, Bernhardt J. Physical activity and sedentary behaviors in people with stroke living in the community: a systematic review. Phys Ther 2014;94:185–96. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Ashe MC, Miller WC, Eng JJ, Noreau L. Older adults, chronic disease and leisure-time physical activity. Gerontology 2009;55:64–72. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Solk P, Gavin K, Fanning J, et al. Feasibility and acceptability of intensive longitudinal data collection of activity and patient-reported outcomes during chemotherapy for breast cancer. Qual Life Res 2019;28:3333–46. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Gebruers N, Vanroy C, Truijen S, Engelborghs S, De Deyn PP. Monitoring of physical activity after stroke: a systematic review of accelerometry-based measures. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2010;91:288–97. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Mayo NE, Wood-Dauphinee S, Côté R, Durcan L, Carlton J. Activity, participation, and quality of life 6 months poststroke. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2002;83:1035–42. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Maeda A, Yuasa T, Nakamura K, Higuchi S, Motohashi Y. Physical performance tests after stroke: reliability and validity. Am J Phys Med Rehabil 2000;79:519–25. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Solhan MB, Trull TJ, Jahng S, Wood PK. Clinical assessment of affective instability: comparing EMA indices, questionnaire reports, and retrospective recall. Psychol Assess 2009;21:425–36. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Ramsey AT, Wetherell JL, Depp C, Dixon D, Lenze E. Feasibility and acceptability of smartphone assessment in older adults with cognitive and emotional difficulties. J Technol Hum Serv 2016;34:209–23. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Lau SCL, Connor LT, Baum CM. Subjective and objective assessments are associated for physical function but not cognitive function in community-dwelling stroke survivors. Disabil Rehabil 2021. Dec 14. [Epub ahead of print]. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Schaller A, Rudolf K, Dejonghe L, Grieben C, Froboese I. Influencing factors on the overestimation of self-reported physical activity: a cross-sectional analysis of low back pain patients and healthy controls. Biomed Res Int 2016;2016:1497213. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Olds TS, Gomersall SR, Olds ST, Ridley K. A source of systematic bias in self-reported physical activity: the cutpoint bias hypothesis. J Sci Med Sport 2019;22:924–8. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Smyth JM, Stone AA. Ecological momentary assessment research in behavioral medicine. J Happiness Stud 2003;4:35–52. [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Moore RC, Kaufmann CN, Rooney AS, et al. Feasibility and acceptability of ecological momentary assessment of daily functioning among older adults with HIV. Am J Geriatr Psychiatry 2017;25:829–40. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Shepherd AI, Pulsford R, Poltawski L, et al. Physical activity, sleep, and fatigue in community dwelling stroke survivors. Sci Rep 2018;8:7900. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Joseph C, Stromback B, Hagstromer M, Conradsson D. Accelerometry: a feasible method to monitor physical activity during sub-acute rehabilitation of persons with stroke. J Rehabil Med 2018;50:429–34. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Moskowitz DS, Young SN. Ecological momentary assessment: what it is and why it is a method of the future in clinical psychopharmacology. J Psychiatry Neurosci 2006;31:13–20. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Shiffman S, Stone AA, Hufford MR. Ecological momentary assessment. Annu Rev Clin Psychol 2008;4:1–32. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Ghahari S, Leigh Packer T, Passmore AE. Effectiveness of an online fatigue self-management programme for people with chronic neurological conditions: a randomized controlled trial. Clin Rehabil 2010;24:727–44. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Ebner-Priemer UW, Koudela S, Mutz G, Kanning M. Interactive multimodal ambulatory monitoring to investigate the association between physical activity and affect. Front Psychol 2013;3:596. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Dunton GF, Dzubur E, Intille S. Feasibility and performance test of a real-time sensor-informed context-sensitive ecological momentary assessment to capture physical activity. J Med Internet Res 2016;18:e106. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Lee JY, Kwon S, Kim WS, Hahn SJ, Park J, Paik NJ. Feasibility, reliability, and validity of using accelerometers to measure physical activities of patients with stroke during inpatient rehabilitation. PloS One 2018;13:e0209607. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Johnson EI, Sibon I, Renou P, Rouanet F, Allard M, Swendsen J. Feasibility and validity of computerized ambulatory monitoring in stroke patients. Neurology 2009;73:1579–83. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Chen Y-A, Demers M, Lewthwaite R, et al. A novel combination of accelerometry and ecological momentary assessment for post-stroke paretic arm/hand use: feasibility and validity. J Clin Med 2021;10:1328. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Brott T, Adams HP Jr, Olinger CP, et al. Measurements of acute cerebral infarction: a clinical examination scale. Stroke 1989;20:864–70. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 33.van Swieten JC, Koudstaal PJ, Visser MC, Schouten HJ, van Gijn J. Interobserver agreement for the assessment of handicap in stroke patients. Stroke 1988;19:604–7. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Foley EL, Nicholas ML, Baum CM, Connor LT. Influence of environmental factors on social participation post-stroke. Behav Neurol 2019;2019:2606039. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Vanbellingen T, Kersten B, Van de Winckel A, et al. A new bedside test of gestures in stroke: the Apraxia Screen of TULIA (AST). J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry 2011;82:389–92. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 36.Friedman PJ. The Star Cancellation Test in acute stroke. Clin. Rehabil 1992;6:23–30. [Google Scholar]
  • 37.Bailey IL, Lovie JE. New design principles for visual acuity letter charts. Am J Optom Physiol Opt 1976;53:740–5. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 38.Schow RL, Nerbonne MA. Communication screening profile: use with elderly clients. Ear Hear 1982;3:135–47. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 39.Jessup G, Bian S, Chen Y, Bundy A. Manual of PIEL survey application (iPhone/iPod Touch/iPad/iPad mini application). Sydney, Australia: University of Sydney; 2012. [Google Scholar]
  • 40.Chapman JJ, Fraser SJ, Brown WJ, Burton NW. The feasibility and acceptability of questionnaires and accelerometry for measuring physical activity and sedentary behaviour in adults with mental illness. J Ment Health 2015;24:299–304. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 41.Pruitt LA, Glynn NW, King AC, et al. Use of accelerometry to measure physical activity in older adults at risk for mobility disability. J Aging Phys Act 2008;16:416–34. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 42.Giné-Garriga M, Sansano-Nadal O, Tully MA, et al. Accelerometer-measured sedentary and physical activity time and their correlates in European older adults: the SITLESS Study. J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci 2020;75:1754–62. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 43.Dunton GF, Leventhal AM, Rothman AJ, Intille SS. Affective response during physical activity: within-subject differences across phases of behavior change. Health Psychol 2018;37:915–23. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 44.Aadland E, Ylvisåker E. Reliability of the Actigraph GT3X+ accelerometer in adults under free-living conditions. PLoS One 2015;10:e0134606. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 45.Trost SG, McIver KL, Pate RR. Conducting accelerometer-based activity assessments in field-based research. Med Sci Sports Exerc 2005;37(11 Suppl):S531–43. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 46.Emm-Collison LG, Jago R, Salway R, Thompson JL, Sebire SJ. Longitudinal associations between parents' motivations to exercise and their moderate-to-vigorous physical activity. Psychol Sport Exerc 2019;43:343–9. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 47.Aguilar-Farias N, Martino-Fuentealba P, Salom-Diaz N, Brown WJ. How many days are enough for measuring weekly activity behaviours with the activPAL in adults? J Sci Med Sport 2019;22:684–8. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 48.Mahendran N, Kuys SS, Downie E, Ng P, Brauer SG. Are accelerometers and GPS devices valid, reliable and feasible tools for measurement of community ambulation after stroke? Brain Impair 2016;17:151–61. [Google Scholar]
  • 49.Paul L, Brewster S, Wyke S, et al. Physical activity profiles and sedentary behaviour in people following stroke: a cross-sectional study. Disabil Rehabil 2016;38:362–7. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 50.Kunkel D, Fitton C, Burnett M, Ashburn A. Physical inactivity post-stroke: a 3-year longitudinal study. Disabil Rehabil 2015;37:304–10. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 51.Lyden K, Keadle SK, Staudenmayer J, Freedson PS. The activPALTM accurately classifies activity intensity categories in healthy adults. Med Sci Sports Exerc 2017;49:1022–8. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 52.Lee LFR, Dall PM. Concurrent agreement between ActiGraph® and activPAL® in measuring moderate to vigorous intensity physical activity for adults. Med Eng Phys 2019;74:82–8. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 53.Ryan CG, Grant PM, Tigbe WW, Granat MH. The validity and reliability of a novel activity monitor as a measure of walking. Br J Sports Med 2006;40:779–84. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 54.Kanning M, Ebner-Priemer U, Schlicht W. Using activity triggered ediaries to reveal the associations between physical activity and affective states in older adult’s daily living. Int J Behav Nutr 2015;12:111. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 55.Reichert M, Tost H, Reinhard I, et al. Within-subject associations between mood dimensions and non-exercise activity: an ambulatory assessment approach using repeated real-time and objective data. Front Psychol 2016;7:918. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 56.Lau S, Macpherson V, Lenze E, et al. Feasibility and validity of ecological momentary assessment of daily function in people after stroke. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2019;100:e179. [Google Scholar]
  • 57.Baum C, Edwards DF. Activity Card Sort (ACS). St. Louis: Washington University School of Medicine; 1995. [Google Scholar]
  • 58.Kroenke K, Spitzer RL, Williams JB. The PHQ-9: validity of a brief depression severity measure. J Gen Intern Med 2001;16:606–13. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 59.Cella D, Lai JS, Nowinski CJ, et al. Neuro-QOL: brief measures of health-related quality of life for clinical research in neurology. Neurology 2012;78:1860–7. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 60.Michielsen HJ, De Vries J, Van Heck GL. Psychometric qualities of a brief self-rated fatigue measure: the Fatigue Assessment Scale. J Psychosom Res 2003;54:345–52. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 61.Cook KF, Jensen SE, Schalet BD, et al. PROMIS measures of pain, fatigue, negative affect, physical function, and social function demonstrated clinical validity across a range of chronic conditions. J Clin Epidemiol 2016;73:89–102. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 62.Craig CL, Marshall AL, Sjostrom M, et al. International physical activity questionnaire: 12-country reliability and validity. Med Sci Sports Exerc 2003;35:1381–95. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 63.Buysse DJ, Reynolds CF 3rd, Monk TH, Berman SR, Kupfer DJ. The Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index: a new instrument for psychiatric practice and research. Psychiatry Res 1989;28:193–213. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 64.Charlson ME, Pompei P, Ales KL, MacKenzie CR. A new method of classifying prognostic comorbidity in longitudinal studies: development and validation. J Chronic Dis 1987;40:373–83. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 65.Bedard C, King-Dowling S, McDonald M, Dunton G, Cairney J, Kwan M. Understanding environmental and contextual influences of physical activity during first-year university: the feasibility of using ecological momentary assessment in the MovingU study. JMIR Public Health Surveill 2017;3:e32. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 66.Khor AS, Gray KM, Reid SC, Melvin GA. Feasibility and validity of ecological momentary assessment in adolescents with high-functioning autism and Asperger's disorder. J Adolesc 2014;37:37–46. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 67.Versluis A, Verkuil B, Lane RD, Hagemann D, Thayer JF, Brosschot JF. Ecological momentary assessment of emotional awareness: preliminary evaluation of psychometric properties. Curr Psychol 2021;40:1402–10. [Google Scholar]
  • 68.Faul F, Erdfelder E, Lang AG, Buchner AG. *Power 3: a flexible statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences. Behav Res Methods 2007;39:175–91. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 69.National Institutes of Health Medical Rehabilitation Coordinating Committee. National Institutes of Health Research Plan on Rehabilitation. Am J Occup Ther 2017;71. 7103320020p7103320021-5. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 70.Hammond J, Rennie B, Seekins T, O’Donnell D. Assessing the availability and quality of online self-help videos: a pilot study with a focus on Parkinson’s disease. Health Educ 2014;74:594–602. [Google Scholar]
  • 71.Ipsen C, Rigles B, Arnold N, Seekins T. The use of telecommunication to deliver services to rural and urban vocational rehabilitation clients. Rehabil Couns Bull 2012;55:144–55. [Google Scholar]
  • 72.Ipsen C, Rigles B, Arnold N, Seekins T. Access to, use of, and attitudes toward telecommunication among rural VR clients. Rehabil Couns Bull 2012;56:172–81. [Google Scholar]
  • 73.Maher JP, Sappenfield K, Scheer H, Zecca C, Hevel DJ, Kennedy-Malone L. Feasibility and validity of assessing low-income, African American older adults’ physical activity and sedentary behavior through ecological momentary assessment. J Meas Phys Behav 2021;4:343–52. [Google Scholar]
  • 74.Dunton GF, Liao Y, Kawabata K, Intille S. Momentary assessment of adults' physical activity and sedentary behavior: feasibility and validity. Front Psychol 2012;3:260. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 75.Nahum-Shani I, Smith SN, Spring BJ, et al. Just-in-time adaptive interventions (JITAIs) in mobile health: key components and design principles for ongoing health behavior support. Ann Behav Med 2018;52:446–62. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Associated Data

This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

Supplementary Materials

Supplementary material

RESOURCES