Objective: To determine to what extent accelerometer-based arm, leg and trunk activity is associated with sensorimotor impairments, walking capacity and other factors in subacute stroke. Design: Cross-sectional study. Patients: Twenty-six individuals with stroke (mean age 55.4 years, severe to mild motor impairment). Methods: Data on daytime activity were collected over a period of 4 days from accelerometers placed on the wrists, ankles and trunk. A forward stepwise linear regression was used to determine associations between free-living activity, clinical and demographic variables. Results: Arm motor impairment (Fugl-Meyer Assessment) and walking speed explained more than 60% of the variance in daytime activity of the more-affected arm, while walking speed alone explained 60% of the more-affected leg activity. Activity of the less-affected arm and leg was associated with arm motor impairment (R-2=0.40) and independence in walking (R-2 =0.59). Arm activity ratio was associated with arm impairment (R-2 =0.63) and leg activity ratio with leg impairment (R-2 =0.38) and walking speed (R-2 =0.27). Walking-related variables explained approximately 30% of the variance in trunk activity. Conclusion: Accelerometer-based free-living activity is dependent on motor impairment and walking capacity. The most relevant activity data were obtained from more-affected limbs. Motor impairment and walking speed can provide some information about real-life daytime activity levels.

OBJECTIVE:To determine whether there are differences in arm, leg and trunk activity measured by acceleration between weekdays and weekends in people undergoing rehabilitation in the subacute stage after stroke.DESIGN:Cross-sectional study.PATIENTS:Twenty-eight individuals with stroke (mean age 55.4 years; severe to mild impairment) and 10 healthy controls.METHODS:A set of 5 3-axial accelerometers were used on the trunk, wrists and ankles during 2 48-h sessions at weekdays and over a weekend. Day-time acceleration raw data were expressed as the signal magnitude area. Asymmetry between the affected and less-affected limb was calculated as a ratio.RESULTS:Participants with stroke used their both arms and legs less at weekends than on weekdays (p< 0.05, effect size 0.32-0.57). Asymmetry between the affected and less-affected arm was greater at weekends (p < 0.05, effect size 0.32). All activity measures, apart from the less-affected arm on weekdays, were lower in stroke compared with controls (p < 0.05, effect size 0.4-0.8). No statistically significant differences were detected between weekday and weekend activity for the control group. One-third of participants perceived the trunk sensor as inconvenient to wear.CONCLUSION:Increased focus needs to be applied on activities carried out during weekends at rehabilitation wards.

People after stroke have difficulties to reach sufficient physical activity level during their rehabilitation and particularly outside the therapy time. We aim to quantify activity levels and investigate differences in motor activity in weekdays and weekends in a subacute stage after stroke. Data from multiple three-axis accelerometers was collected during two 48 h sessions in 11 patients. The activity level and symmetry indices were sensitive to variations in weekend and weekdays. This information is valuable in rehabilitation planning and management and enables identification of those in risk of low physical activity and inactivity.