Walking on common ground: a cross-disciplinary scoping review on the clinical utility of digital mobility outcomes

Physical mobility is essential to health, and patients often rate it as a high-priority clinical outcome. Digital mobility outcomes
(DMOs), such as real-world gait speed or step count, show promise as clinical measures in many medical conditions. However,
current research is nascent and fragmented by discipline. This scoping review maps existing evidence on the clinical utility of
DMOs, identifying commonalities across traditional disciplinary divides. In November 2019, 11 databases were searched for records
investigating the validity and responsiveness of 34 DMOs in four diverse medical conditions (Parkinson’s disease, multiple sclerosis,
chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, hip fracture). Searches yielded 19,672 unique records. After screening, 855 records
representing 775 studies were included and charted in systematic maps. Studies frequently investigated gait speed (70.4% of
studies), step length (30.7%), cadence (21.4%), and daily step count (20.7%). They studied differences between healthy and
pathological gait (36.4%), associations between DMOs and clinical measures (48.8%) or outcomes (4.3%), and responsiveness to
interventions (26.8%). Gait speed, step length, cadence, step time and step count exhibited consistent evidence of validity and
responsiveness in multiple conditions, although the evidence was inconsistent or lacking for other DMOs. If DMOs are to be
adopted as mainstream tools, further work is needed to establish their predictive validity, responsiveness, and ecological validity.
Cross-disciplinary efforts to align methodology and validate DMOs may facilitate their adoption into clinical practice.

This work was supported by the Mobilise-D project that has received funding from the Innovative Medicines Initiative 2 Joint Undertaking under grant agreement No. 820820. This Joint Undertaking receives support from the European Union's Horizon 2020 research and innovation program and the European Federation of Pharmaceutical Industries and Associations (EFPIA). Content in this publication reflects the authors’ view and neither IMI nor the European Union, EFPIA, or any Associated Partners are responsible for any use that may be made of the information contained herein.