TOPLINE

A timed walk test was feasible to assess walking speed among patients with type 2 diabetes in a general practice in the UK, and its mean results were comparable to accelerometer readings. The treadmill method took much longer and was deemed not feasible for routine care.

METHODOLOGY

• Researchers conducted a study in a general practice in the UK to assess the feasibility of walking speed measures in routine care: stopwatch-timed walks, accelerometry, and walking on a treadmill.
• They enrolled 30 patients with type 2 diabetes (mean age, 59.6 years; 80% men) who attended the clinic across a 2-month period in 2019. Among them, 17% had prior cardiovascular disease.
• An accelerometer was attached to the lumbar spine at the L5 level using adhesive tape. Patients completed a timed 28-m walk (four passes of 7 m in the surgery corridor) at their usual pace, with staff timing the walk using a stopwatch; they then walked on a treadmill for 3 minutes at a comfortable pace.
• Walking speed measurements were performed again after 6 months at the diabetes clinic, with 83% of patients attending the follow-up assessments.
• The analysis was performed to assess the agreement between measurements, comparing the walking speeds across methods and between visits; feedback was collected from seven patients and three staff members regarding acceptability.

TAKEAWAY

• At baseline, the mean walking speed was 1.12 m/s during the timed walk, 1.15 m/s as measured by the accelerometer, and 1.01 m/s on the treadmill.
• The analysis showed good agreement between the timed walk and accelerometry (mean difference in speed, 0.027 m/s slower for the timed walk; 95% limits of agreement, 0.17 m/s slower to 0.11 m/s faster). A wider variability was noted for the timed walk-treadmill comparison (mean difference in speed, 0.075 m/s faster for the timed walk; 95% limits of agreement, 0.65 m/s slower to 0.80 m/s faster).
• The average walking speeds at 6-month follow-up were very similar to those at baseline for each method, with small mean differences.
• Patients and staff were overall positive about measuring the walking speed. Staff needed 2-5 minutes per patient for the timed walk, compared with about 10-20 minutes per patient for the treadmill, and both groups said that the treadmill was not feasible in routine care.

IN PRACTICE

"This study could contribute towards changing clinical practice. It suggests that assessing walking speed in diabetes clinics using a timed walk and/or accelerometry is feasible and acceptable in an average general practice," the authors wrote. "Staff preferences were towards the timed walk test as it had the least impact on patient throughput and adjacent clinics in the practice," they added.

SOURCE

The study was led by Richard Baskerville, Faculty of Health, Science and Technology, Oxford Brookes University, Oxford, England. It was published online on October 06, 2026, in Family Practice.

LIMITATIONS

The study was small and took place at only one general practice. Patients with severe balance or mobility problems were excluded, which may have introduced bias. The gap of 6 months between test visits affected the repeatability check and limited the true comparison between the test and retest.

DISCLOSURES

The authors did not declare any funding for this study and any conflicts of interest.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication.