Archives of physical medicine and rehabilitation · 2010
Predictive validity of the classification schema for functional mobility tests in instrumental activities of daily living decline among older adults.
СтатьяПоддержка NIH: внешняя программаПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Shimada Hiroyuki, Sawyer Patricia, Harada Kazuhiro, Kaneya Satomi, Nihei Kenji, Asakawa Yasuyoshi, Yoshii Chiharu, Hagiwara Akiyoshi, Furuna Taketo, Ishizaki Tatsuro
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: To determine predictive validity for cut points of the Timed Up & Go (TUG) test and life-space assessment (LSA) on decline in instrumental activities of daily living (IADLs) among older adults.
DESIGN: Cross-sectional and 1-year follow-up study.
SETTING: Preventive health care services.
PARTICIPANTS: In a cross-sectional study, 2404 older adults (65-100 y) were recruited to determine cut points for the TUG and LSA for IADLs limitation. For longitudinal analysis, 436 older adults (65-100 y) were followed over 1 year to explore the validity of a classification model using the cut points to predict incident IADLs decline.
INTERVENTIONS: Not applicable.
MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The TUG, LSA, and Tokyo Metropolitan Institute of Gerontology index of IADLs measurement.
RESULTS: The cut points associated with IADLs limitations for the TUG and LSA were 12 seconds and 56 points, respectively. Participants were classified into fast/high (most able; TUG <12 and LSA >56), fast/low, slow/high, and slow/low (vulnerable; TUG > or =12 and LSA < or =56) groups; there were 813 (34%), 385 (16%), 246 (10%), and 960 (40%) participants in each group, respectively. The proportions of participants with IADLs limitation in the most able, fast/low, slow/high, and vulnerable groups were 19%, 64%, 61%, and 89%, respectively. The vulnerable group included significantly more participants with IADLs limitation than any other group (P<.001). Compared with a most able group, the odds ratios of IADLs decline for the fast/low and vulnerable groups were 2.52 (95% confidence interval 1.15-5.53, P<.05) and 2.87 (95% confidence interval 1.38-5.96, P<.01), respectively.
CONCLUSIONS: The combination of TUG and LSA identifies persons with future IADLs decline and has the potential to be used by community health care services to target individualized interventions.
DESIGN: Cross-sectional and 1-year follow-up study.
SETTING: Preventive health care services.
PARTICIPANTS: In a cross-sectional study, 2404 older adults (65-100 y) were recruited to determine cut points for the TUG and LSA for IADLs limitation. For longitudinal analysis, 436 older adults (65-100 y) were followed over 1 year to explore the validity of a classification model using the cut points to predict incident IADLs decline.
INTERVENTIONS: Not applicable.
MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The TUG, LSA, and Tokyo Metropolitan Institute of Gerontology index of IADLs measurement.
RESULTS: The cut points associated with IADLs limitations for the TUG and LSA were 12 seconds and 56 points, respectively. Participants were classified into fast/high (most able; TUG <12 and LSA >56), fast/low, slow/high, and slow/low (vulnerable; TUG > or =12 and LSA < or =56) groups; there were 813 (34%), 385 (16%), 246 (10%), and 960 (40%) participants in each group, respectively. The proportions of participants with IADLs limitation in the most able, fast/low, slow/high, and vulnerable groups were 19%, 64%, 61%, and 89%, respectively. The vulnerable group included significantly more participants with IADLs limitation than any other group (P<.001). Compared with a most able group, the odds ratios of IADLs decline for the fast/low and vulnerable groups were 2.52 (95% confidence interval 1.15-5.53, P<.05) and 2.87 (95% confidence interval 1.38-5.96, P<.01), respectively.
CONCLUSIONS: The combination of TUG and LSA identifies persons with future IADLs decline and has the potential to be used by community health care services to target individualized interventions.