Background: Physical capacity is a predictor of disability and mortality in older people and is used to monitor disease progression. Multiple tests like the 6MWT and timed up and go (TUG) are available in-clinic, but require a supervisor. Performing these tests at home would make it easier to assess physical capacity more often and in a natural environment. Multiple efforts to modify tests for at home use have been done.

Objective: Systematically review home-based physical capacity tests and their clinimetric properties in chronic patient populations.

Methods: Pubmed and CINAHL were searched for relevant articles that used a home-based or remotely supervised physical capacity test. Reviews, case studies and protocols were excluded. Study design, population and type of physical capacity test were extracted together with clinimetric properties including (test-retest) reliability, criterion validity and responsiveness.

Results: We included 25 articles, studying the 6MWT (n=18), the TUG (n=2), the 30 second Sit To Stand test (n=2) and the step test (n=2). Patients with pulmonary diseases, cardiovascular diseases, Parkinson?s disease, cancer or spine-related disability were studied. Tests were performed via smartphone applications, accelerometers, inertial measurement units, videoconferencing or with a 5-meter rope. At home testing was successful in most studies. Reliability and validity were established for multiple 6MWT approaches. For the other tests, most studies did not investigate reliability, validity, or responsiveness of the tests.

Conclusion: Testing physical capacity remotely at home using different approaches seems feasible. More research is needed to determine clinimetrics in different tests and approaches.