ArticlePloS one2025
Remote physical function testing in older adults: a mixed methods study exploring test reliability, feasibility, and perceptions of participants and assessors.
Article in PloS one, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Validity and reliability of remote administration of the one-leg stand, timed up and go and 30-second sit-to-stand via video call in patients with lumbar spinal stenosis awaiting decompression surgery.BMC musculoskeletal disorders · 2026Trial
- mHealth-Supported Exercise Rehabilitation to Reverse Frailty After Autologous Transplantation in Multiple Myeloma: Randomized Controlled Trial.JMIR mHealth and uHealth · 2026Trial
- Assessment of physical function of hospitalized older patients in routine clinical practice predicts 1-year mortality; A cohort study of 5,062 medical and surgical patients.European geriatric medicine · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Impaired physical function is linked to poor health outcomes in older adults. Low-cost, remote strategies for monitoring physical function could enable timely interventions, improving health and reducing the need for support services. This study aimed to evaluate the feasibility, reliability, and perceptions of remotely assessing physical function in older adults at home. Nineteen community-dwelling older adults (68 ± 5 years; 68% female) participated in three videoconferencing sessions with trained assessors, one week apart. Participants completed nine physical function tests [standing balance test battery, single-leg balance, four-square step test (FSST), gait speed (2.44 m and 4 m, both usual and fastest pace), five-times sit-to-stand (5-STS), 30-second STS (30-STS)]. Semi-structured interviews with participants and assessors explored feasibility and acceptability. Test-retest reliability was assessed using intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs) and Bland-Altman plots, and interview data were analysed thematically. All participants completed assessments without adverse events. Test-retest reliability ranged from poor (ICC < 0.5 for single-leg balance) to good (ICC 0.75-0.9 for 5-STS, 30-STS, gait, and FSST), improving with repeated testing. Participants identified challenges with device setup and physical demands of preparing their home. Assessors noted participant understanding as a barrier. Both groups recognised support from others during testing as a key enabler. Older adults can safely and feasibly perform physical function tests remotely. Familiarisation improves reliability and reducing technical and physical demands can enhance implementation. Support from others at home may be important for successful remote testing.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.