Measures of movement and mobility used in clinical practice and research: a scoping review.

Moulton, Elizabeth; Wilson, Rosemary; Silva, Amina Regina; Kircher, Colleen; Petry, Stéfany; Goldie, Catherine; Medves, Jennifer; Deluzio, Kevin; Ross-White, Amanda

OBJECTIVE The first objective of this scoping review is to identify all the tools designed to measure movement or mobility in adults. The second objective is to compare the tools to the conceptual definitions of movement and mobility by mapping them to the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF). INTRODUCTION The concepts of movement and mobility are distinct concepts that are often conflated, and the differences are important to patient care. Movement is a change in the place or position of a part of the body or of the whole body. Mobility is derived from movement and is defined as the ability to move with ease. Researchers and clinicians, including nurses, physiotherapists, and occupational therapists who work with older adults and in rehabilitation, need to be confident that they are measuring the outcome of interest. INCLUSION CRITERIA This scoping review considered studies that included participants that are adults, aged 19 and older, with any level of ability or disability. The concepts of interest are tools that measure movement or mobility relative to the human body. Studies were considered regardless of country of origin, health care setting, or sociocultural setting. METHODS CINAHL, Health and Psychosocial Instruments, MEDLINE, and Embase were searched in June 2018 and OpenGrey, Dissertation Abstracts International, and Google Scholar were searched in November 2018. The searches were limited to articles in English, and the date range was from the inception of the database to the current date. Data were extracted from the studies using a custom data extraction tool. Once tools were identified for analysis, they were coded using the table format developed by Cieza and colleagues. RESULTS There were 702 unique tools identified, with 651 of them available to be coded for the ICF. There were 385 ICF codes used when coding the tools. From these codes, the percentage of codes of the defining attributes of movement and mobility that were covered could be calculated as well as the percentage of tool items that were linked to the antecedents, consequences, or defining attributes of movement or mobility. CONCLUSIONS Although there are many tools that measure only movement or mobility, there are many that measure a mixture of the defining attributes as well as the antecedents and consequences. The tool name alone should not be considered a guarantee of the concept measured, and tool selection should be done with a critical eye. This study provides a starting point from which clinicians and researchers can find tools that measure the concepts of movement and mobility of interest and importance to their patient population.