Simple Mobility Tests Predict Use of Assistive Devices in Older Adults.

IF 1.5 4区 医学 Q4 GERIATRICS & GERONTOLOGY
Journal of Geriatric Physical Therapy Pub Date : 2024-10-01 Epub Date: 2024-09-18 DOI:10.1519/JPT.0000000000000413
Toru Matsuda, Shingo Muranaga, Joseph A Zeni, Yuri Yoshida
{"title":"Simple Mobility Tests Predict Use of Assistive Devices in Older Adults.","authors":"Toru Matsuda, Shingo Muranaga, Joseph A Zeni, Yuri Yoshida","doi":"10.1519/JPT.0000000000000413","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Assistive devices (ADs) for ambulation are commonly provided to improve safety and independence in older adults. Despite the common use of these devices, there are no standard prescribing guidelines, and non-health care providers, including caregivers and family members, often make decisions about the need for ADs. Identifying factors or a single screening test associated with AD use would benefit clinicians and non-health care caregivers in making decisions to adopt an AD for patients, clients, and family members.</p><p><strong>Purpose/objectives: </strong>The purpose of this cross-sectional study was to identify the test that best predicts ADs for ambulation and non-AD use among community-dwelling individuals.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Eighty-five older adults (81.6 ± 8.2 years old) who underwent outpatient physical therapy participated in this study. They participated in a series of tests, including the Timed Up and Go, handgrip and quadriceps strength, the 30-second chair-rise test, the 5-m fast gait speed, the Functional Independence Measure, the locomotive syndrome tests (stand-up test, 2-step test [2ST], and the Locomo-5 Checklist), and numeric pain scales. Mann-Whitney U tests were used to identify differences between those who did and did not use an AD for ambulation. Logistic regression analyses were used to examine which test best predicted AD use.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>80% of participants (n = 68) used an AD for ambulation. There were significant differences in all test variables between users and nonusers ( P = .033 to P < .001), except for quadriceps strength, age, and pain (all P > .05). Only the 2ST was a significant predictor of AD use, with a cutoff distance of the toe-to-toe stride shorter than 93% of body height (sensitivity: 72%, and specificity: 82%, P = .048).</p><p><strong>Discussion: </strong>Simple functional measures differed between those who did and did not use ADs for ambulation; however, only the 2ST predicted AD status. Individuals who cannot step 93% of their body height may be appropriate for an AD.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>If comprehensive clinical evaluations are not available to make decisions about AD use, the 2ST can be used to make clinical recommendations for an AD for ambulation.</p>","PeriodicalId":49035,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Geriatric Physical Therapy","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.5000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Geriatric Physical Therapy","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1519/JPT.0000000000000413","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/9/18 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"GERIATRICS & GERONTOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Assistive devices (ADs) for ambulation are commonly provided to improve safety and independence in older adults. Despite the common use of these devices, there are no standard prescribing guidelines, and non-health care providers, including caregivers and family members, often make decisions about the need for ADs. Identifying factors or a single screening test associated with AD use would benefit clinicians and non-health care caregivers in making decisions to adopt an AD for patients, clients, and family members.

Purpose/objectives: The purpose of this cross-sectional study was to identify the test that best predicts ADs for ambulation and non-AD use among community-dwelling individuals.

Methods: Eighty-five older adults (81.6 ± 8.2 years old) who underwent outpatient physical therapy participated in this study. They participated in a series of tests, including the Timed Up and Go, handgrip and quadriceps strength, the 30-second chair-rise test, the 5-m fast gait speed, the Functional Independence Measure, the locomotive syndrome tests (stand-up test, 2-step test [2ST], and the Locomo-5 Checklist), and numeric pain scales. Mann-Whitney U tests were used to identify differences between those who did and did not use an AD for ambulation. Logistic regression analyses were used to examine which test best predicted AD use.

Results: 80% of participants (n = 68) used an AD for ambulation. There were significant differences in all test variables between users and nonusers ( P = .033 to P < .001), except for quadriceps strength, age, and pain (all P > .05). Only the 2ST was a significant predictor of AD use, with a cutoff distance of the toe-to-toe stride shorter than 93% of body height (sensitivity: 72%, and specificity: 82%, P = .048).

Discussion: Simple functional measures differed between those who did and did not use ADs for ambulation; however, only the 2ST predicted AD status. Individuals who cannot step 93% of their body height may be appropriate for an AD.

Conclusions: If comprehensive clinical evaluations are not available to make decisions about AD use, the 2ST can be used to make clinical recommendations for an AD for ambulation.

简单的行动能力测试可预测老年人使用辅助设备的情况。
背景:为提高老年人的安全性和独立性,通常会提供行走辅助设备(ADs)。尽管这些设备的使用很普遍,但并没有标准的处方指南,非医疗保健提供者(包括护理人员和家庭成员)通常会决定是否需要使用辅助器具。确定与自动吸入器使用相关的因素或单一筛查测试将有利于临床医生和非医疗保健护理人员为患者、客户和家庭成员做出采用自动吸入器的决定:这项横断面研究的目的是确定最能预测社区居民行走和非 AD 使用情况的测试方法:85 名接受门诊物理治疗的老年人(81.6 ± 8.2 岁)参加了这项研究。他们参加了一系列测试,包括定时起立、手握力和股四头肌力量、30 秒椅子起立测试、5 米快速步速、功能独立性测量、运动综合征测试(站立测试、两步测试 [2ST] 和运动综合征-5 检查表)以及疼痛数字量表。Mann-Whitney U 检验用于确定使用和不使用助行器行走的患者之间的差异。Logistic 回归分析用于研究哪种测试最能预测助行器的使用情况:结果:80%的参与者(n = 68)使用助行器代步。除了股四头肌力量、年龄和疼痛(P 均大于 0.05)外,使用者和非使用者之间的所有测试变量均存在明显差异(P = .033 至 P < .001)。只有 2ST 能显著预测 AD 的使用情况,趾到趾间距的临界值应小于身高的 93%(灵敏度:72%,特异度:82%,P = .048):简单的功能测试结果显示,使用和不使用助行器行走的人之间存在差异;但是,只有 2ST 可以预测助行器行走状态。无法迈出身高 93% 的人可能适合使用助行器:结论:如果无法通过全面的临床评估来决定是否使用助行器,则可以使用 2ST 来为使用助行器进行步行提供临床建议。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Journal of Geriatric Physical Therapy
Journal of Geriatric Physical Therapy GERIATRICS & GERONTOLOGY-REHABILITATION
CiteScore
3.70
自引率
4.20%
发文量
58
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: ​Journal of Geriatric Physical Therapy is the leading source of clinically applicable evidence for achieving optimal health, wellness, mobility, and physical function across the continuum of health status for the aging adult. The mission of the Academy of Geriatric Physical Therapy is building a community that advances the profession of physical therapy to optimize the experience of aging.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信