Table 1.
Study characteristics, population, intervention versus control, and outcomes.
| First Author (Year) | Country, Setting | Study Population | Length of Hospital Stay in Days | Intervention Versus Control | Outcomes and Measures | Results |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Brown et al. (2016) [30] | USA, medical ward | Patients were 65 years or older, admitted with a medical diagnosis (n = 100 at baseline, n = 92 at follow-up) | UC: 3.6 (SD: 2.4) MP: 4.6 (SD: 4.0) |
Twice-daily ambulation and a behavioral strategy versus twice-daily visits (usual care) | Reported falls during the hospital stay with 24-h diary (number) | UC = 3 falls; MP = 0 falls |
| ADL-activity performance with Functional Outcome Assessment (score) | UC: t0 = 8.7 (SD: 0.3); UC: t1 = 8.0 (SD: 0.3); MP: t0 = 8.4 (SD: 0.3); MP: t1 = 8.1 (SD: 0.3) |
|||||
| Community mobility with Life-Space Assessment tool (score) | UC: t0 = 51.5 (SD: 3.0); UC: t2 = 41.8 (SD: 3.2); MP: t0 = 54.0 (SD: 4.2); MP: t2 = 52.6 (SD: 4.4) |
|||||
| Time spent out of bed using accelerometer (minutes per day) | No data due to technical failure | |||||
| Dall et al. (2019) [31] |
Denmark, pulmonary ward | Patients were admitted with a pulmonary diagnosis (n = 141 at baseline, n = 93 at follow-up) | UC: 8.3 (SD: 10.4) VF: 7.3 (SD: 12.2) |
Visual feedback of the daily time spent in bed, sitting, standing, and walking; versus no feedback | Reported falls during the hospital stay (number) | UC: 0 falls; VF: 0 falls |
| Time spent standing and walking using accelerometers (minutes per day) | UC: 64 (−3 to 131); VF: 81 (46 to 117) |
|||||
| Time spent lying in bed and sitting using accelerometer (minutes per day) | UC: 1376 (95% CI: 1309 to 1443); VF: 1359 (95% CI: 1323 to 1394) |
|||||
| Killey and Watt (2006) [32] | Australia, medical ward | Patients were 70 years or older, admitted with provisional diagnoses (n = 77 at baseline, n = 48 at follow-up) | Not reported | Twice a day seven days a week extra walking to comfortable limit versus standard assistance to walk (normal care) | Reported falls during the hospital stay (number) | UC: 2 falls; MP: 0 falls |
| ADL-activity performance with Barthel index (score) | UC: t0 = 58.1 (SD: 27.8); UC: t1 = 55.2 (SD: 31.8); MP: t0 = 59.2 (SD: 25.9); MP: t1 = 70.8 (SD: 24.3) |
|||||
| Hospital mobility with performed maximum distance walked (meters) | UC: t0 = 32.1 (SD: 32.8); UC: t1 = 47.9 (SD: 47.7); MP: t0 = 38.6 (SD: 27.1); MP: t1 = 79.4 (SD: 58.0) |
|||||
| McGowan et al. (2018) [33] | UK, acute medical ward | Patients were 65 years or older, admitted with an acute medical diagnosis (n = 50 at baseline, n = 48 at follow-up) | Not reported | Pedal exercises for 5 min three times a day with minimal supervision versus usual level of clinical input (standard care) | ADL-activity performance with Elderly Mobility Scale (score) | UC: t0 = 15.7 (SD: 4.0) UC: t1 = 14.1 (SD: 2.9) PE: t0 = 13.8 (SD: 4.6) PE: t1 = 13.2 (SD: 2.8) |
| Time spent standing and walking using accelerometer (percentage per day) | UC: 5.0% (IQR: 0.6% to 17.1%); PE: 4.5% (IQR: 0.1% to 45.8%) |
|||||
| Revolutions cycled using Able-2 exerciser (number) | PE: 152 (IQR: 43.5 to 464.5) |
|||||
| Pedal exercises using Able-2 exerciser (minutes) | PE: 5.08 (95% CI: 2.03 to 20.05) |
ADL: activities of daily living; CI: confidence interval; IQR: interquartile range; MP: mobility program; n: number; PE: pedal exercises; SD: standard deviation; t0: baseline; t1: hospital discharge; UC: usual care; UK: United Kingdom; USA, United States of America; VF: visual feedback.