Marla K Beauchamp1, Suzanne G Leveille, Kushang V Patel, Dan K Kiely, Caroline L Phillips, Stefania Bandinelli, Luigi Ferrucci, Jack Guralnik, Jonathan F Bean. 1. From the Department of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, Harvard Medical School, Spaulding Rehabilitation Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts (MKB, JFB); College of Nursing Health Sciences, University of Massachusetts Boston, Division of General Medicine and Primary Care, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Harvard Medical School (SGL); Department of Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine, University of Washington, Seattle (KVP); Institute for Aging Research, Hebrew SeniorLife, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts (DKK); Laboratory of Epidemiology and Population Sciences, National Institute on Aging, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland (CLP); Geriatric Rehabilitation Unit, Azienda Sanitaria Firenze, Florence, Italy (SB); National Institute on Aging, Baltimore, Maryland (LF); and Department of Epidemiology and Public Health, Division of Gerontology, University of Maryland School of Medicine, Baltimore (JG).
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The aims of this study were to evaluate and contrast the physical attributes that are associated with self-reported vs. observed ability to walk 400 m among older adults. DESIGN: Analysis of baseline and 3-yr data from 1026 participants 65 yrs or older in the InCHIANTI (Invecchiare in Chianti) study was conducted. Observed and self-reported ability to walk 400 m at baseline and at 3 yrs were primary outcomes. Predictors included leg speed, leg strength, leg strength symmetry, range of motion, balance, and kyphosis. RESULTS: Balance, leg speed, leg strength, kyphosis, leg strength symmetry, and knee range of motion were associated with self-reported ability to walk 400 m at baseline (P < 0.001, c = 0.85). Balance, leg speed, and knee range of motion were associated with observed 400-m walk (P < 0.001, c = 0.85) at baseline. Prospectively, baseline leg speed and leg strength were predictive of both self-reported (P < 0.001, c = 0.79) and observed (P < 0.001, c = 0.72) ability to walk 400 m at 3 yrs. CONCLUSIONS: The profiles of attributes that are associated with self-reported vs. observed walking ability differ. The factor most consistently associated with current and future walking ability is leg speed. These results draw attention to important foci for rehabilitation.
OBJECTIVE: The aims of this study were to evaluate and contrast the physical attributes that are associated with self-reported vs. observed ability to walk 400 m among older adults. DESIGN: Analysis of baseline and 3-yr data from 1026 participants 65 yrs or older in the InCHIANTI (Invecchiare in Chianti) study was conducted. Observed and self-reported ability to walk 400 m at baseline and at 3 yrs were primary outcomes. Predictors included leg speed, leg strength, leg strength symmetry, range of motion, balance, and kyphosis. RESULTS: Balance, leg speed, leg strength, kyphosis, leg strength symmetry, and knee range of motion were associated with self-reported ability to walk 400 m at baseline (P < 0.001, c = 0.85). Balance, leg speed, and knee range of motion were associated with observed 400-m walk (P < 0.001, c = 0.85) at baseline. Prospectively, baseline leg speed and leg strength were predictive of both self-reported (P < 0.001, c = 0.79) and observed (P < 0.001, c = 0.72) ability to walk 400 m at 3 yrs. CONCLUSIONS: The profiles of attributes that are associated with self-reported vs. observed walking ability differ. The factor most consistently associated with current and future walking ability is leg speed. These results draw attention to important foci for rehabilitation.
Authors: Anthony P Marsh; Michael E Miller; Aaron M Saikin; W Jack Rejeski; Nan Hu; Fulvio Lauretani; Stefania Bandinelli; Jack M Guralnik; Luigi Ferrucci Journal: J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci Date: 2006-11 Impact factor: 6.053
Authors: Anne B Newman; Eleanor M Simonsick; Barbara L Naydeck; Robert M Boudreau; Stephen B Kritchevsky; Michael C Nevitt; Marco Pahor; Suzanne Satterfield; Jennifer S Brach; Stephanie A Studenski; Tamara B Harris Journal: JAMA Date: 2006-05-03 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Anne Shumway-Cook; Jack M Guralnik; Caroline L Phillips; Antonia K Coppin; Marcia A Ciol; Stefania Bandinelli; Luigi Ferrucci Journal: J Am Geriatr Soc Date: 2007-01 Impact factor: 5.562
Authors: Kenneth Rockwood; Susan E Howlett; Chris MacKnight; B Lynn Beattie; Howard Bergman; Réjean Hébert; David B Hogan; Christina Wolfson; Ian McDowell Journal: J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci Date: 2004-12 Impact factor: 6.053
Authors: Diba Mani; Awad M Almuklass; Landon D Hamilton; Taian M Vieira; Alberto Botter; Roger M Enoka Journal: J Neurophysiol Date: 2018-07-25 Impact factor: 2.714
Authors: Amanda L Lorbergs; Joanne M Murabito; Mohamed Jarraya; Ali Guermazi; Brett T Allaire; Laiji Yang; Douglas P Kiel; L Adrienne Cupples; Mary L Bouxsein; Thomas G Travison; Elizabeth J Samelson Journal: J Am Geriatr Soc Date: 2017-08-21 Impact factor: 5.562
Authors: Marla K Beauchamp; Alan M Jette; Rachel E Ward; Laura A Kurlinski; Dan Kiely; Nancy K Latham; Jonathan F Bean Journal: J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci Date: 2014-12-15 Impact factor: 6.053
Authors: Marla K Beauchamp; Alan M Jette; Pengsheng Ni; Nancy K Latham; Rachel E Ward; Laura A Kurlinski; Sanja Percac-Lima; Suzanne G Leveille; Jonathan F Bean Journal: J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci Date: 2015-09-13 Impact factor: 6.053