S Z Kalula1, G H Swingler, A A Sayer, M Badri, M Ferreira. 1. Division of Geriatric Medicine, The Albertina and Walter Sisulu Institute of Ageing in Africa, Department of Medicine, University of Cape Town, South Africa. Sebastiana.Kalula@uct.ac.za
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To test the effects of the use of a collapsible, portable chair (chair B), as opposed to a 'standard' chair (chair A), on the outcome of the timed "Up and Go" (TUG) test. DESIGN: Cross-sectional. SETTING: Multipurpose senior centres. PARTICIPANTS: Mobile older persons (N=118, mean age 77 years (range 62-99 years)). OUTCOME MEASURES: Time to complete the timed "Up and Go" test using chair A and chair B, and inter-rater agreement in the time scores. RESULTS: Time taken to complete the TUG test did not differ by chair type [median (interquartile range, IQR) = 12.3 (9.53-15.9) and 12.6 (9.7-16.6)] seconds for Chair A and B respectively, p-value=0.87. In multiple regression analyses, factors that impacted on time difference in test performance for the two chairs were use of a walking aid during the test [Odds ratio (OR) = 3.7 95%CI 1.1-11.9, p=0.031], observed difficulty with mobility (OR= 27.7 95%CI 2.6-290, p=0.006), and a history of arthritis in the knees (OR= 2.9 95%CI 1.0-8.7, P=0.05). In an inter-rater agreement analysis, no significant difference was found between time scores recorded by the two raters; median (IQR) = 12.4 (10.9-15.9) and 12.3 (7.2-59.1) seconds for the occupation therapist and for the research assistant, respectively (Wilcoxon matched pairs test, p=0.124, Spearman correlation coefficient = 0.99, p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: The use of a portable canvas chair with standardised specifications offers an acceptable alternative to the use of a 'standard' chair in assessments of fall risk using the TUG test in field settings where field workers are reliant on public transport.
OBJECTIVE: To test the effects of the use of a collapsible, portable chair (chair B), as opposed to a 'standard' chair (chair A), on the outcome of the timed "Up and Go" (TUG) test. DESIGN: Cross-sectional. SETTING: Multipurpose senior centres. PARTICIPANTS: Mobile older persons (N=118, mean age 77 years (range 62-99 years)). OUTCOME MEASURES: Time to complete the timed "Up and Go" test using chair A and chair B, and inter-rater agreement in the time scores. RESULTS: Time taken to complete the TUG test did not differ by chair type [median (interquartile range, IQR) = 12.3 (9.53-15.9) and 12.6 (9.7-16.6)] seconds for Chair A and B respectively, p-value=0.87. In multiple regression analyses, factors that impacted on time difference in test performance for the two chairs were use of a walking aid during the test [Odds ratio (OR) = 3.7 95%CI 1.1-11.9, p=0.031], observed difficulty with mobility (OR= 27.7 95%CI 2.6-290, p=0.006), and a history of arthritis in the knees (OR= 2.9 95%CI 1.0-8.7, P=0.05). In an inter-rater agreement analysis, no significant difference was found between time scores recorded by the two raters; median (IQR) = 12.4 (10.9-15.9) and 12.3 (7.2-59.1) seconds for the occupation therapist and for the research assistant, respectively (Wilcoxon matched pairs test, p=0.124, Spearman correlation coefficient = 0.99, p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: The use of a portable canvas chair with standardised specifications offers an acceptable alternative to the use of a 'standard' chair in assessments of fall risk using the TUG test in field settings where field workers are reliant on public transport.
Authors: Sebastiana Z Kalula; Monica Ferreira; George H Swingler; Motasim Badri; Avan A Sayer Journal: Afr Health Sci Date: 2017-09 Impact factor: 0.927