OBJECTIVE: To determine the relationships between measures of functional mobility (Timed Up and Go [TUG], Self-Paced Walking [SPW], Berg Balance Scale [BBS]) and global functional status (FIM trade mark instrument), the motor component of the FIM instrument (motor FIM), and the mobility/locomotor-specific FIM component (ML-FIM) in older patients admitted to an inpatient rehabilitation program after hip fracture. DESIGN: The TUG, SPW, BBS, and FIM instrument were administered within 24 hr after admission and before discharge to 20 patients undergoing inpatient rehabilitation after a hip fracture. RESULTS: Significant correlations at admission were found between FIM and TUG scores (r = -0.47; p < 0.05), TUG and motor FIM (r = -0.45; p < 0.05), TUG and ML-FIM (r = -0.58; p < 0.01), FIM and BBS (r = 0.60; p < 0.01), motor FIM and BBS (r = 0.50; p < 0.05), and ML-FIM and BBS (r = 0.45; p < 0.05). At discharge, a significant correlation was found between the motor FIM and SPW (r = -0.49; p < 0.05). Change scores between both the motor FIM and ML-FIM and TUG scores were significantly correlated (r = -0.47, p < 0.05, r = -0.50, p < 0.05, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: The FIM instrument, motor FIM, and ML-FIM may not be specific measures of functional mobility in patients with hip fracture.
OBJECTIVE: To determine the relationships between measures of functional mobility (Timed Up and Go [TUG], Self-Paced Walking [SPW], Berg Balance Scale [BBS]) and global functional status (FIM trade mark instrument), the motor component of the FIM instrument (motor FIM), and the mobility/locomotor-specific FIM component (ML-FIM) in older patients admitted to an inpatient rehabilitation program after hip fracture. DESIGN: The TUG, SPW, BBS, and FIM instrument were administered within 24 hr after admission and before discharge to 20 patients undergoing inpatient rehabilitation after a hip fracture. RESULTS: Significant correlations at admission were found between FIM and TUG scores (r = -0.47; p < 0.05), TUG and motor FIM (r = -0.45; p < 0.05), TUG and ML-FIM (r = -0.58; p < 0.01), FIM and BBS (r = 0.60; p < 0.01), motor FIM and BBS (r = 0.50; p < 0.05), and ML-FIM and BBS (r = 0.45; p < 0.05). At discharge, a significant correlation was found between the motor FIM and SPW (r = -0.49; p < 0.05). Change scores between both the motor FIM and ML-FIM and TUG scores were significantly correlated (r = -0.47, p < 0.05, r = -0.50, p < 0.05, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: The FIM instrument, motor FIM, and ML-FIM may not be specific measures of functional mobility in patients with hip fracture.
Authors: Muhammad Kashif; Ashfaq Ahmad; Muhammad Ali Mohseni Bandpei; Syed Amir Gilani; Humaira Iram; Maryam Farooq Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2022-02-18 Impact factor: 3.390