Daily-Living Freezing of Gait as Quantified Using Wearables in People With Parkinson Disease: Comparison With Self-Report and Provocation Tests. Issue 12 (30th September 2022)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Denk, Diana; Herman, Talia; Zoetewei, Demi; Ginis, Pieter; Brozgol, Marina; Cornejo Thumm, Pablo; Decaluwe, Eva; Ganz, Natalie; Palmerini, Luca; Giladi, Nir; Nieuwboer, Alice; Hausdorff, Jeffrey M
• Is Part Of: Physical therapy. Volume 102:Issue 12(2022)
• Publication Date: 2022-09-30
• Subjects: Daily-Living Monitoring -- FOG Assessment -- FOG Severity -- Freezing of Gait; Physical therapy -- Periodicals; Physical therapy; Physical Therapy Modalities; Rehabilitation; Physical and Rehabilitation Medicine; Periodicals; 615.8205
• DOI: 10.1093/ptj/pzac129
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 0031-9023

Abstract

Abstract: Objective: Freezing of gait (FOG) is an episodic, debilitating phenomenon that is common among people with Parkinson disease. Multiple approaches have been used to quantify FOG, but the relationships among them have not been well studied. In this cross-sectional study, we evaluated the associations among FOG measured during unsupervised daily-living monitoring, structured in-home FOG-provoking tests, and self-report. Methods: Twenty-eight people with Parkinson disease and FOG were assessed using self-report questionnaires, percentage of time spent frozen (%TF) during supervised FOG-provoking tasks in the home while off and on dopaminergic medication, and %TF evaluated using wearable sensors during 1 week of unsupervised daily-living monitoring. Correlations between those 3 assessment approaches were analyzed to quantify associations. Further, based on the %TF difference between in-home off-medication testing and in-home on-medication testing, the participants were divided into those responding to Parkinson disease medication (responders) and those not responding to Parkinson disease medication (nonresponders) in order to evaluate the differences in the other FOG measures. Results: The %TF during unsupervised daily living was mild to moderately correlated with the %TF during a subset of the tasks of the in-home off-medication testing but not the on-medication testing or self-report. Responders and nonresponders differed in the %TF during the personal "hot spot" task of the provoking protocol while off medication (but not while on medication) but not in the total scores of the self-report questionnaires or the measures of FOG evaluated during unsupervised daily living. Conclusion: The %TF during daily living was moderately related to FOG during certain in-home FOG-provoking tests in the off-medication state. However, this measure of FOG was not associated with self-report or FOG provoked in the on-medication state. These findings suggest that to fully capture FOG severity, it is best to assess FOG using a combination of all 3 approaches. Impact: These findings suggest that several complementary approaches are needed to provide a complete assessment of FOG severity.