Next Article in Journal
Resected Tumor Outcome and Recurrence (RESTORE) Index for Hepatocellular Carcinoma Recurrence after Resection
Next Article in Special Issue
Colorectal Cancer Surgery: Influence of Psychosocial Factors
Previous Article in Journal
Clinical Behavior, Mutational Profile and T-Cell Repertoire of High-Grade Neuroendocrine Tumors of the Head and Neck
Previous Article in Special Issue
Impact of Surgical Care Bundle on Surgical Site Infection after Non-Reconstructive Breast Cancer Surgery: A Single-Centre Retrospective Comparative Cohort Study
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Cancers
Volume 15
Issue 9
10.3390/cancers15092434
cancers-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Feasibility, Reliability, and Safety of Remote Five Times Sit to Stand Test in Patients with Gastrointestinal Cancer

by
Daniel Steffens
1,2,*,
Natasha C. Pocovi
1,3,
Jenna Bartyn
1,2,
Kim Delbaere
4,5,
Mark J. Hancock
3,
Cherry Koh
1,2,6,
Linda Denehy
7,8,
Kimberley S. van Schooten
4,5,
Michael Solomon
1,2,6 and
on behalf of the Priority Trial Collaboration
†
1
Surgical Outcomes Research Centre (SOuRCe), Royal Prince Alfred Hospital (RPAH), Sydney, NSW 2006, Australia
2
Faculty of Medicine and Health, Central Clinical School, The University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW 2042, Australia
3
Faculty of Medicine, Health and Human Sciences, Macquarie University, Sydney, NSW 2109, Australia
4
Neuroscience Research Australia, Randwick, Sydney, NSW 2031, Australia
5
School of Population Health, University of New South Wales, Kensington, NSW 2052, Australia
6
Department of Colorectal Surgery, Royal Prince Alfred Hospital (RPAH), Sydney, NSW 2006, Australia
7
Department of Physiotherapy, Faculty of Medicine Dentistry and Health Sciences, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, VIC 3010, Australia
8
Department of Health Services Research, Allied Health, Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, Melbourne, VIC 3000, Australia
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
†
Priority Trial Collaboration are listed in acknowledgments.
Cancers 2023, 15(9), 2434; https://doi.org/10.3390/cancers15092434
Submission received: 19 January 2023 / Revised: 10 February 2023 / Accepted: 20 April 2023 / Published: 24 April 2023
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Preoperative Optimisation in Patients Undergoing Cancer Surgery)
Browse Figures
Review Reports Versions Notes

Abstract

:

Simple Summary

The five times sit to stand (5STS) test is widely used to measure functional lower extremity strength. However, the psychometric properties of the 5STS test when performed remotely is unknown. This study determined the feasibility, reliability, and safety of the remote five times sit to stand test (5STS) in 37 patients scheduled to undergo gastrointestinal cancer surgery. Participants completed the 5STS test both face-to-face and remotely, with the order randomised. The study provides supporting evidence that the remote 5STS test is feasible, reliable, and safe in patients with gastrointestinal cancer and can be used in both clinical and research settings.

Abstract

Background: To determine the feasibility, reliability, and safety of the remote five times sit to stand test (5STS) test in patients with gastrointestinal cancer. Methods: Consecutive adult patients undergoing surgical treatment for lower gastrointestinal cancer at a major referral hospital in Sydney between July and November 2022 were included. Participants completed the 5STS test both face-to-face and remotely, with the order randomised. Outcomes included measures of feasibility, reliability, and safety. Results: Of fifty-five patients identified, seventeen (30.9%) were not interested, one (1.8%) had no internet coverage, and thirty-seven (67.3%) consented and completed both 5STS tests. The mean (SD) time taken to complete the face-to-face and remote 5STS tests was 9.1 (2.4) and 9.5 (2.3) seconds, respectively. Remote collection by telehealth was feasible, with only two participants (5.4%) having connectivity issues at the start of the remote assessment, but not interfering with the tests. The remote 5STS test showed excellent reliability (ICC = 0.957), with limits of agreement within acceptable ranges and no significant systematic errors observed. No adverse events were observed within either test environment. Conclusions: Remote 5STS for the assessment of functional lower extremity strength in gastrointestinal cancer patients is feasible, reliable, and safe, and can be used in clinical and research settings.

1. Introduction

For cancer patients scheduled for major surgery, the preoperative period provides an opportunity for the identification of modifiable medical, physical, nutritional, and psychological risk factors that may associate with postoperative complications [1]. Patients scheduled for major elective surgical procedures will generally attend a preoperative clinic and undergo a variety of assessments 2–6 weeks before their surgery. However, during the Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, most of the preoperative assessments were limited to appointments via telehealth, to protect vulnerable cancer patients, clinicians, community, and to control the spread of COVID-19 [2].
Clinical research projects that regularly conduct baseline assessments during the preoperative work-up period were also significantly affected, with most research projects paused or required to rapidly adapt to the challenges associated with the COVID-19 pandemic [3,4]. Some of these challenges, included severe restrictions to face-to-face assessments, hampering the collection of crucial research measures, particularly objective physical outcomes [5]. To minimise the spread of the disease and avoid placing participants and trialists at risk, remote physical assessment was chosen as the preferred contingency plan for many research projects [6].
While remote physical assessments via telehealth [7] enabled researchers to maintain participant involvement in research projects and allowed for the collection of some objective outcome measures, the feasibility, reliability, and safety of specific physical assessments, such as five times sit-to-stand test (5STS), when collected via telehealth is currently not known. At our centre, the gold standard tests for the assessment of physical capacity, including cardiopulmonary exercise testing (CPET) and the six-minute walk test (6MWT), were completely aborted, due to the increased risk of COVID-19 transmission in our laboratory, and particularly for at-risk inpatients within the hospital. Alternatively, the 5STS, Ref. [8] is a simple, quick, and easy test to measure lower extremity muscle strength and is commonly used in various diseases, including cancer patients undergoing surgery [9,10]. When performed face-to-face, the 5STS test has demonstrated excellent psychometric properties of reliability, validity, and responsiveness [11,12]. Therefore, the validation of the remote 5STS test is useful, and can be used beyond the COVID-19 pandemic (e.g., assessing patients rurally residing) as telemedicine is further developed.
Recently, studies have successfully evaluated the reliability of a remote 5STS test [13,14] and other variations, including the 30 s sit to stand (30 s STS) test [15,16]; however, the psychometric properties of the remote 5STS test in cancer patients are currently unknown. The aims of this study were to determine the feasibility, validity, and safety of the remote 5STS test in patients presenting with gastrointestinal cancer.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Study Design and Setting

This cross-sectional observational study included patients seeking surgical treatment for gastrointestinal cancer between July and November 2022 at the Royal Prince Alfred Hospital, Sydney, Australia. This manuscript was written in accordance to the STROBE checklist [17]. Ethics and Governance approvals were obtained from the Sydney Local Health District Ethics Review Committee (Royal Prince Alfred Hospital Zone—Approval number X22-0092/ETH00602), with written informed consent sought from all participants.

2.2. Participant Recruitment

Patients were identified by the Royal Prince Alfred Hospital (Sydney, Australia) treating gastrointestinal surgeons and provided with the Participant Information Sheet and Consent Form. Interested participants were contacted by an experienced research officer from the Surgical Outcomes Research Centre (SOuRCe), who provided further information about the study and obtained written consent. Participants aged 18 years and older, presenting with gastrointestinal cancer and seeking surgical treatment at the Royal Prince Alfred Hospital, were included if they had access to a device (e.g., mobile phone, tablet, laptop, or desktop) with internet connectivity, a camera, and audio capabilities. Participants presenting with severe vision and/or hearing impairments, or that were too unwell to perform the 5STS test were excluded.
Those patients who agreed to participate then provided demographic information, and performed the face-to-face and remote 5STS tests.

2.3. Demographic Measures

Baseline variables were collected via online or paper questionnaires. These included age, gender, body mass index, country of birth, language spoken at home, caring responsibilities, level of education, employment status, type of cancer, and level of familiarity with technology (i.e., smartphone, computer, tablet, etc.).
Symptoms of pain were collected using the Numerical Pain Rating Scale [18], with scores ranging from 0 to 10, where higher scores indicated the worst pain symptom. Patient distress was assessed using the Distress Thermometer [19], with scores ranging from 0 to 10, where higher scores indicated higher patient distress. Fatigue was measured using the nine-item Fatigue Severity Scale, with scores ranging from 9 to 63, where higher scores indicated more severe fatigue [20]. Measures of physical activity were collected using the International Physical Activity Questionnaire—Short Form (IPAQ-SF) [21]. Participants were categorised as meeting or not meeting at least 150–300 min of moderate-intensity aerobic physical activity, or at least 75–150 min of vigorous-intensity physical activity, or an equivalent combination of moderate- and vigorous-intensity activity throughout the week, per the level of physical activity recommended by the World Health Organisation guidelines.

2.4. Five Times Sit to Stand Test

Following baseline data collection, participants were randomly allocated to undertake either the face-to-face or remote 5STS first [8]. Both 5STS assessments were performed at approximately the same time of day, within a 3-day window. The same assessor performed the face-to-face and the remote 5STS assessment for each individual participant.
For the face-to-face 5STS assessment, all participants were assessed using the same chair (44 cm) and clinical assessment room. Participants were instructed to sit with their arms folded across their chest and with their back against a chair. Participants were asked to stand up and sit down as quickly as possible, five times. The time taken in seconds to complete the test was recorded using a stopwatch. A shorter time for completion of the 5STS is indicative of better lower limb strength.
Prior to the remote assessment of 5STS, a trained research officer aided the participants in identifying the most appropriate place to conduct the test, by explaining the test to the participants and instructing them to locate a clear space in their home without furniture or obstacles, to reduce risks. A support person was required to be present during the remote assessment. Participants were asked to identify a chair that was 43–45 cm high to be consistent with the chair used in the face-to-face assessment.

2.5. Primary Outcome Measures

The main outcome measures of this study were the feasibility, reliability, and safety of the remote 5STS test, and were defined a priori as:
(i) 
Feasibility: The feasibility of the 5STS test was as the proportion of eligible patients that incurred issues with at home assessment, including inadequate space, chair, or internet connectivity. The remote assessment was considered feasible if the minority (i.e., <20%) of included participants presented with the abovementioned issues.
(ii) 
Reliability: This was measured by comparing the 5STS test scores (i.e., time) between the remote (videoconferencing measurement) and direct assessment (face-to-face measurement), within the same participant. This was performed to explore whether remote physical assessments produce similar scores (i.e., agreement) as the face-to-face assessments.
(iii) 
Safety: Safety was defined by the number of adverse events which occurred during the 5STS tests. A serious adverse event was defined as an event which required medical intervention and results in death, a life-threatening situation, hospitalisation, incapacity, and/or disability. A minor adverse event was defined as an event that requires medical review and resolves without intervention, resulting in no hospitalisation, incapacity, or disability [22].

2.6. Sample Size

The sample size of the study was based on the time (seconds) taken to complete the 5STS tests. Thus, 36 participants were required based on an Interclass Correlation Coefficient (ICC) of 0.75, a precision of 0.15, a confidence level of 95%, and a dropout rate of 5%.

2.7. Analyses

All study data were recorded in a Research Electronic Data Capture (REDCap, Vanderbilt University, Nashville, TN, USA) database, which was based on a secure server hosted by the Sydney Local Health District [23]. Descriptive statistics were used to characterise the sample, feasibility, and safety outcomes. Categorical data are presented as frequency (percentage) and continuous data as median (interquartile range).
To determine the reliability of the remote 5STS test, the two-way random ICC with single measures were calculated. ICC values range from 0 to 1, where 1 indicates perfect agreement. An ICC ≥ 0.8 was considered high, 0.6 to 0.79 was considered moderate, and <0.6 was considered as having poor validity. The optimal level of agreement was set as 0.8 and the minimum acceptable level was set as 0.7 [24]. To investigate the agreement between the face-to-face and remote physical assessments, a Bland and Altman plot was used [25]. Wilcoxon signed-rank test was used to determine the differences between face-to-face and remote 5STS tests.
The Standard Error of the Measurement (SEM) was used to measure the precision of measurement and the absolute reliability, and was calculated using the following formula: SEM = SD × √1 − ICC [26]. A small SEM indicates a good absolute reliability of the measure. The Minimal Detectable Change (MDC) was measured using the absolute SEM (MDC = SEM × 1.96 × √2) [26]. The MDC indicates the minimal amount of change that can be confidently interpreted as a real change. A small MDC indicates a more sensitive measurement. All analyses were performed using IBM SPSS Statistics version 28 (SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL, USA) with two-sided tests at α = 0.05 significance level.

3. Results

3.1. Characteristics of the Included Sample

Of the fifty-five patients identified, seventeen (30.9%) were not interested in participating and one patient (1.8%) had no internet coverage. Therefore, total of 37 (67.3%) patients presenting with gastrointestinal cancer who consented were included. All participants completed both assessments. The median patient age was 54 years old, with most being female (64.9%). Most of the participants presented with colorectal cancer (62.2%), followed by pseudomymoxa peritonei (16.2%). The majority of the participants were familiar with technology, including smartphone/computer (70.3%) and iPad or tablet devices (73.0%). The detailed characteristics of the included participants are presented in Table 1.

3.2. Feasibility

One patient was excluded from the study due to not having internet coverage at their place of residence (regional area). Two participants (5.4%) out of the thirty-seven patients that were included in the study presented with internet connectivity issues at the beginning of the test (during the instruction period). These connections were resolved and the remote 5STS tests were able to be completed without further incidents.

3.3. Reliability

The face-to-face and remote 5STS assessments were performed 1.3 days apart (range = 1 to 3 days) on average. The mean (SD) time taken to complete the face-to-face and remote 5STS tests was 9.1 (2.4) and 9.5 (2.3) seconds, respectively (p < 0.052). The individual 5STS times are illustrated in Figure 1.
The mean difference and upper/lower limits of agreement for the 5STS tests are illustrated on the Bland-Altman plot (Figure 2). There was excellent agreement between face-to-face and remote tests, with only a small proportion of observations falling outside of the limits of agreement.
The reliability of the remote 5STS test was excellent, with an ICC = 0.957 (95%CI = 0.88 to 0.98), p < 0.001. The SEM and the MDC were 0.176 and 0.488 s, respectively.

3.4. Safety

During the face-to-face and remote assessments, no serious or minor adverse events were observed during testing.

4. Discussion

The findings of this study demonstrated that the remote 5STS test is feasible, reliable, and safe in patients undergoing treatment for gastrointestinal cancer. These results support the use of remote assessment in this population, especially if conducting the 5STS test face-to-face would facilitate the assessment of patients’ functional capacity in those living in remote regions or in another state.
The remote 5STS test was considered safe, with no adverse events observed across the study period. During the remote assessments, the study research officer was able to identify a safe place to perform the 5STS test with ease. For safety reasons, all 5STS remote tests were performed with a support person near to the participant; however, their involvement was not required. To the authors knowledge, this is the first study to investigate the safety and reliability of a remote 5STS test in this population. Other studies have investigated psychometrics measurements of the 5STS test in other settings and populations [27]. Similar findings were reported in a study investigating the safety and reliability of the 5STS test in older patients hospitalised in an intensive care unit. Of the 288 face-to-face tests performed (n = 96 unique patients), no discontinuation or adverse events were observed [28]. Similarly, in a cancer population, the 30 s STS was found to be safe and feasible when remotely tested on telehealth in 30 patients [29].
Only one patient was not able to be included in the study, as they had no internet coverage at their area of residency. Our hospital is a tertiary/quaternary referral centre in Australia for the treatment of gastrointestinal cancer patients. As such, many of the included patients (40–60%) were from other catchment areas, including regional and interstate areas. Despite the disparity in terms of place of residency, internet coverage was not a major issue during the remote 5STS tests, with only two patients having connectivity issues during the start of the online assessments. These issues were soon resolved, and the test was able to be normally conducted. Similarly, the study conducted by Ogawa et al. also reported a small number of connectivity issues (5%) within their remote physical assessments, including 30 s arm curls, the 30 s STS, and the 2-min step test in older veterans [14]. Thus, it is feasible to perform the remote 5STS test in regions with good internet connectivity.
Early evidence has supported the validity and reliability of a variety of physical assessments remotely performed in other populations [13,14,30,31,32,33]. In our study, the remote 5STS test showed excellent reliability (ICC = 0.957) and no significant systematic errors were observed. The reliability (ICC) in other populations for the remote 5STS was also supportive, including among older veterans (remote assessments performed by two different assessors, ICC = 0.999) [14] and older adults (face-to-face vs. remote assessments, ICC = 0.960) [13]. The 30 s STS, is a variation of the 5STS test, and has also demonstrated similar reliability outcomes in knee osteoarthritis (ICC = 0.920) [30], cancer survivors and carers (ICC = 0.860) [32], and multiple sclerosis (ICC = 0.974) [31]. The SEM and MDC values of the 5STS test were 0.176 and 0.488 s, respectively. These values are of importance for clinicians and can be used to assess the lower limb strength, to determine if the patients condition is improving or deteriorating over time. While the reliability of the remote 5STS test has been evaluated in other populations, mostly in older adults, it was important to determine its feasibility, reliability, and safety in cancer patients. Recent studies have demonstrated a significant reduction in physical capacity and lower limb strength in cancer patients when compared to non-cancer populations [9,34], which is further exacerbated by preoperative neoadjuvant therapy. Therefore, our study was able to evaluate these important psychometric measurements in cancer patients.
Some of the strengths of this study included the powered sample size, the strong methodology utilised (i.e., randomising the first 5STS test to either face-to-face or remote), the clinical importance of having a reliable and safe strength and function measure, and the utilisation of a trained research officer who measured both 5STS tests using a standardised approach. This study has some limitations that need to be addressed. First, this study included patients with gastrointestinal cancer that were mostly tech-savvy and in possession of a computer or mobile device with good internet connectivity and a video camera. Secondly, despite this study not collecting information on the reasons for non-participation, these patients appear to be similar in terms age, gender, type of cancer, and country of birth when compared to the included patients. In this study, 31% of patients approached were not interested in participating. A better understanding of the reasons for non-participation would enhance the evidence on the feasibility of conducting the remote 5STS in this population. If the reasons for non-participation were mostly related to common issues such as time commitment, then it is unlikely to have impacted our results. If, however, these patients had substantially worse physical function or less access to technology, then that could impact the generalisability of our findings. Therefore, our results cannot be generalised to all patients and countries where patients may be less familiar with technology and internet coverage is suboptimal. In addition, as our study included one experienced research officer collecting all 5STS test measures, the interrater reliability was not able to be determined, and represents an important future study alongside measuring validity in this cancer population. Lastly, the required resources, financial advantages and disadvantages, together with the patient experience of completing the 5STS test face-to-face or remotely, should also be investigated in future studies, as these factors could be identified as a barriers to clinicians and/or patients using the remote 5STS test.

5. Conclusions

Our study provides important psychometric and clinical utility information on the remote 5STS test conducted among patients with gastrointestinal cancer. The study provides supporting evidence that the remote 5STS test is feasible, reliable, and safe in patients with gastrointestinal cancer and can be used in both clinical and research settings.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, D.S., K.D., L.D. and M.S.; methodology, D.S., K.D., L.D., M.J.H. and M.S.; formal analysis, D.S. and M.S.; investigation, D.S., N.C.P., J.B., K.D., M.J.H., C.K., L.D., K.S.v.S. and M.S.; resources, D.S., K.D. and M.J.H.; data curation, N.C.P. and J.B.; writing—original draft preparation, D.S.; writing—review and editing, D.S., N.C.P., J.B., K.D., M.J.H., C.K., L.D., K.S.v.S., M.S. and Priority Trial Collaboration; supervision, K.D., M.J.H., L.D. and M.S.; project administration, D.S., N.C.P. and J.B. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

The study was conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki, and approved by the Ethics Committee of Royal Prince Alfred Hospital (Approval number X22-0092/ETH00602, approval date 8 June 2022).

Informed Consent Statement

Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study. Written informed consent has been obtained from the patients to publish this paper.

Data Availability Statement

The data presented in this study are available on request from the corresponding author.

Acknowledgments

Priority Trial Collaboration: Jane Young, Bernhard Riedel, Rachael L. Morton, Alexander Heriot, Qiang Li, Adrian Bauman, Charbel Sandroussi, Hilmy Ismail, Mbathio Dieng, Nabila Ansari, Neil Pillinger, Sarah O’Shannassy, Sam McKeown, Derek Cunningham, Kym Sheehan, Gino Iori, Nima Ahmadi, Peter Lee, Jonathan Hong.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Steffens, D.; Beckenkamp, P.R.; Hancock, M.; Solomon, M.; Young, J. Preoperative exercise halves the postoperative complication rate in patients with lung cancer: A systematic review of the effect of exercise on complications, length of stay and quality of life in patients with cancer. Br. J. Sport. Med. 2018, 52, 344. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  2. Waterland, J.L.; Chahal, R.; Ismail, H.; Sinton, C.; Riedel, B.; Francis, J.J.; Denehy, L. Implementing a telehealth prehabilitation education session for patients preparing for major cancer surgery. BMC Health Serv. Res. 2021, 21, 443. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  3. McBride, K.E.; Brown, K.G.M.; Fisher, O.M.; Steffens, D.; Yeo, D.A.; Koh, C.E. Impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on surgical services: Early experiences at a nominated COVID-19 centre. ANZ J. Surg. 2020, 90, 663–665. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  4. Steffens, D.; Young, J.; Riedel, B.; Morton, R.; Denehy, L.; Heriot, A.; Koh, C.; Li, Q.; Bauman, A.; Sandroussi, C.; et al. PrehabIlitation with preoperatIve exercise and education for patients undergoing major abdominal cancer surgery: Protocol for a multicentre randomised controlled TRIAL (PRIORITY TRIAL). BMC Cancer 2022, 22, 443. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  5. Harper, L.; Kalfa, N.; Beckers, G.M.A.; Kaefer, M.; Nieuwhof-Leppink, A.J.; Fossum, M.; Herbst, K.W.; Bagli, D. The impact of COVID-19 on research. J. Pediatr. Urol. 2020, 16, 715–716. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  6. Monaghesh, E.; Hajizadeh, A. The role of telehealth during COVID-19 outbreak: A systematic review based on current evidence. BMC Public Health 2020, 20, 1193. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Dijkstra, H.P.; Ergen, E.; Holtzhausen, L.; Beasley, I.; Alonso, J.M.; Geertsema, L.; Geertsema, C.; Nelis, S.; Ngai, A.S.H.; Stankovic, I.; et al. Remote assessment in sport and exercise medicine (SEM): A narrative review and teleSEM solutions for and beyond the COVID-19 pandemic. Br. J. Sport. Med. 2020, 54, 1162. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Lord, S.R.; Murray, S.M.; Chapman, K.; Munro, B.; Tiedemann, A. Sit-to-stand performance depends on sensation, speed, balance, and psychological status in addition to strength in older people. J. Gerontol. Ser. A Biol. Sci. Med. Sci. 2002, 57, M539–M543. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Makker, P.G.S.; Koh, C.E.; Solomon, M.J.; Ratcliffe, J.; Steffens, D. Functional outcomes following pelvic exenteration: Results from a prospective cohort study. Color. Dis. Off. J. Assoc. Coloproctol. Great Br. Irel. 2021, 23, 2647–2658. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Quinn, T.J.; McArthur, K.; Ellis, G.; Stott, D.J. Functional assessment in older people. BMJ Br. Med. J. 2011, 343, d4681. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Goldberg, A.; Chavis, M.; Watkins, J.; Wilson, T. The five-times-sit-to-stand test: Validity, reliability and detectable change in older females. Aging Clin. Exp. Res. 2012, 24, 339–344. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Makizako, H.; Shimada, H.; Doi, T.; Tsutsumimoto, K.; Nakakubo, S.; Hotta, R.; Suzuki, T. Predictive Cutoff Values of the Five-Times Sit-to-Stand Test and the Timed “Up & Go” Test for Disability Incidence in Older People Dwelling in the Community. Phys. Ther. 2017, 97, 417–424. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  13. Peyrusqué, E.; Granet, J.; Pageaux, B.; Buckinx, F.; Aubertin-Leheudre, M. Assessing Physical Performance in Older Adults during Isolation or Lockdown Periods: Web-Based Video Conferencing as a Solution. J. Nutr. Health Aging 2022, 26, 52–56. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  14. Ogawa, E.F.; Harris, R.; Dufour, A.B.; Morey, M.C.; Bean, J. Reliability of Virtual Physical Performance Assessments in Veterans During the COVID-19 Pandemic. Arch. Rehabil. Res. Clin. Transl. 2021, 3, 100146. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Lawford, B.J.; Dobson, F.; Bennell, K.L.; Merolli, M.; Graham, B.; Haber, T.; Teo, P.L.; Mackenzie, D.; McManus, F.; Lamb, K.E.; et al. Clinician-administered performance-based tests via telehealth in people with chronic lower limb musculoskeletal disorders: Test–retest reliability and agreement with in-person assessment. J. Telemed. Telecare 2022, 1357633X221137387. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Blair, C.K.; Harding, E.; Herman, C.; Boyce, T.; Demark-Wahnefried, W.; Davis, S.; Kinney, A.Y.; Pankratz, V.S. Remote Assessment of Functional Mobility and Strength in Older Cancer Survivors: Protocol for a Validity and Reliability Study. JMIR Res. Protoc. 2020, 9, e20834. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  17. von Elm, E.; Altman, D.G.; Egger, M.; Pocock, S.J.; Gøtzsche, P.C.; Vandenbroucke, J.P. Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) statement: Guidelines for reporting observational studies. BMJ (Clin. Res. Ed.) 2007, 335, 806–808. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  18. Williamson, A.; Hoggart, B. Pain: A review of three commonly used pain rating scales. J. Clin. Nurs. 2005, 14, 798–804. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  19. Ownby, K.K. Use of the Distress Thermometer in Clinical Practice. J. Adv. Pract. Oncol. 2019, 10, 175–179. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  20. Learmonth, Y.C.; Dlugonski, D.; Pilutti, L.A.; Sandroff, B.M.; Klaren, R.; Motl, R.W. Psychometric properties of the Fatigue Severity Scale and the Modified Fatigue Impact Scale. J. Neurol. Sci. 2013, 331, 102–107. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  21. Lee, P.H.; Macfarlane, D.J.; Lam, T.H.; Stewart, S.M. Validity of the international physical activity questionnaire short form (IPAQ-SF): A systematic review. Int. J. Behav. Nutr. Phys. Act. 2011, 8, 115. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  22. National Health and Medical Research Council. Safety Monitoring and Reporting in Clinical Trials Involving Therapeutic Goods; goods Smarictit; National Health and Medical Research Council: Canberra, Australia, 2016. [Google Scholar]
  23. Patridge, E.F.; Bardyn, T.P. Research Electronic Data Capture (REDCap). J. Med. Libr. Assoc. 2018, 106, 142–144. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Koo, T.K.; Li, M.Y. A Guideline of Selecting and Reporting Intraclass Correlation Coefficients for Reliability Research. J. Chiropr. Med. 2016, 15, 155–163. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Giavarina, D. Understanding Bland Altman analysis. Biochem. Med. 2015, 25, 141–151. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  26. Weir, J.P. Quantifying test-retest reliability using the intraclass correlation coefficient and the SEM. J. Strength Cond. Res. 2005, 19, 231–240. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  27. Suttanon, P.; Hill, K.D.; Dodd, K.J.; Said, C.M. Retest reliability of balance and mobility measurements in people with mild to moderate Alzheimer’s disease. Int. Psychogeriatr. 2011, 23, 1152–1159. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Melo, T.A.; Duarte, A.C.M.; Bezerra, T.S.; França, F.; Soares, N.S.; Brito, D. The Five Times Sit-to-Stand Test: Safety and reliability with older intensive care unit patients at discharge. Rev. Bras. De Ter. Intensiv. 2019, 31, 27–33. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Bowman, A.; Denehy, L.; Benjemaa, A.; Crowe, J.; Bruns, E.; Hall, T.; Traill, A.; Edbrooke, L. Feasibility and safety of the 30-second sit-to-stand test delivered via telehealth: An observational study. PM R J. Inj. Funct. Rehabil. 2022, 15, 31–40. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Gill, S.; Hely, R.; Page, R.S.; Hely, A.; Harrison, B.; Landers, S. Thirty second chair stand test: Test-retest reliability, agreement and minimum detectable change in people with early-stage knee osteoarthritis. Physiother. Res. Int. J. Res. Clin. Phys. Ther. 2022, 27, e1957. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Özkeskin, M.; Özden, F.; Ar, E.; Yüceyar, N. The reliability and validity of the 30-second chair stand test and modified four square step test in persons with multiple sclerosis. Physiother. Theory Pract. 2022, 1–7. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Hoenemeyer, T.W.; Cole, W.W.; Oster, R.A.; Pekmezi, D.W.; Pye, A.; Demark-Wahnefried, W. Test/Retest Reliability and Validity of Remote vs. In-Person Anthropometric and Physical Performance Assessments in Cancer Survivors and Supportive Partners. Cancers 2022, 14, 1075. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  33. Pelicioni, P.H.S.; Waters, D.L.; Still, A.; Hale, L. A pilot investigation of reliability and validity of balance and gait assessments using telehealth with healthy older adults. Exp. Gerontol. 2022, 162, 111747. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  34. Makker, P.G.S.; Koh, C.E.; Ansari, N.; Gonzaga, N.; Bartyn, J.; Solomon, M.; Steffens, D. Functional Outcomes Following Cytoreductive Surgery and Hyperthermic Intraperitoneal Chemotherapy: A Prospective Cohort Study. Ann. Surg. Oncol. 2022, 30, 447–458. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Cancers 15 02434 g001 550
Figure 1. Time taken to complete face-to-face and remote five times sit to stand tests (n = 37). Face-to-face: Median (IQR) = 9.0 (7.2 to 10.6) and mean (SD) = 9.1 (2.4); Remote: Median (IQR) = 9.4 (7.8 to 10.9) and mean (SD) = 9.5 (2.3), p < 0.058.
Figure 1. Time taken to complete face-to-face and remote five times sit to stand tests (n = 37). Face-to-face: Median (IQR) = 9.0 (7.2 to 10.6) and mean (SD) = 9.1 (2.4); Remote: Median (IQR) = 9.4 (7.8 to 10.9) and mean (SD) = 9.5 (2.3), p < 0.058.
Cancers 15 02434 g001
Cancers 15 02434 g002 550
Figure 2. Bland-Altman plot of agreement between face-to-face and remote five times sit to stand tests. The mean difference was −0.48 s (continuous red line) and the upper and lower limits were 1.16 and −2.12 s (broken red lines).
Figure 2. Bland-Altman plot of agreement between face-to-face and remote five times sit to stand tests. The mean difference was −0.48 s (continuous red line) and the upper and lower limits were 1.16 and −2.12 s (broken red lines).
Cancers 15 02434 g002
Table
Table 1. Characteristics of the included sample (n = 37).
Table 1. Characteristics of the included sample (n = 37).
Baseline VariablesFrequency (Percentage) or Median (Interquartile Range)
Age, years54.0 (46.0 to 61.5)
Gender, female24 (64.9%)
Body mass index, kg/m224.1 (22.7 to 28.4)
Country of birth
Australia25 (67.6%)
Overseas12 (32.4%)
Language spoken at home
English31 (83.8%)
Other6 (16.2%)
Caring responsibilities13 (35.1%)
Level of education
Primary school—Year 1213 (35.1%)
Technical certificate or diploma7 (18.9%)
University degree17 (46.0%)
Employment status
Full-time/Part-time23 (62.2%)
Retired/sick leave12 (32.4%)
Unemployed2 (5.4%)
Type of cancer
Anal2 (5.4%)
Appendix3 (8.1%)
Colorectal 23 (62.2%)
Gastrointestinal Stromal Tumour1 (2.7%)
Pseudomyxoma Peritonei6 (16.2%)
Retroperitoneal Liposarcoma1 (2.7%)
Small Bowel Adenocarcinoma1 (2.7%)
Familiarity with technology
Smartphone or computer
Very familiar26 (70.3%)
Familiar9 (24.3%)
Not at all familiar2 (5.4%)
iPad or tablet device
Very familiar27 (73.0%)
Familiar8 (21.6%)
Not at all familiar2 (5.4%)
Numerical pain rating score a1.0 (0.0 to 3.0)
Distress thermometer b1.0 (0.0 to 2.5)
Fatigue Severity Scale c26.0 (14.0 to 38.5)
Meeting WHO physical activity recommendations d
Yes15 (40.5%)
No22 (59.5%)
a Pain scores range from 0 to 10, where 10 indicates the worst pain; b Distress scores range from 0 to 10, with higher scores indicating higher distress; c Fatigue scores range from 9 to 63, with higher scores indicating more severe fatigue; d Meeting the World Health Organisation physical activity recommendations; WHO = World Health Organisation.
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Steffens, D.; Pocovi, N.C.; Bartyn, J.; Delbaere, K.; Hancock, M.J.; Koh, C.; Denehy, L.; van Schooten, K.S.; Solomon, M.; on behalf of the Priority Trial Collaboration. Feasibility, Reliability, and Safety of Remote Five Times Sit to Stand Test in Patients with Gastrointestinal Cancer. Cancers 2023, 15, 2434. https://doi.org/10.3390/cancers15092434

AMA Style

Steffens D, Pocovi NC, Bartyn J, Delbaere K, Hancock MJ, Koh C, Denehy L, van Schooten KS, Solomon M, on behalf of the Priority Trial Collaboration. Feasibility, Reliability, and Safety of Remote Five Times Sit to Stand Test in Patients with Gastrointestinal Cancer. Cancers. 2023; 15(9):2434. https://doi.org/10.3390/cancers15092434

Chicago/Turabian Style

Steffens, Daniel, Natasha C. Pocovi, Jenna Bartyn, Kim Delbaere, Mark J. Hancock, Cherry Koh, Linda Denehy, Kimberley S. van Schooten, Michael Solomon, and on behalf of the Priority Trial Collaboration. 2023. "Feasibility, Reliability, and Safety of Remote Five Times Sit to Stand Test in Patients with Gastrointestinal Cancer" Cancers 15, no. 9: 2434. https://doi.org/10.3390/cancers15092434

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop