Benjamin D Capistrant1, M Maria Glymour, Lisa F Berkman. 1. Division of Epidemiology and Community Health, School of Public Health, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, Minnesota; Minnesota Population Center, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, Minnesota.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To assess the correspondence between self-reported and measured indicators of mobility disability in older adults in six low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). DESIGN: Cross-sectional analysis of Study on Global AGEing and Adult Health (SAGE). SETTING: Household surveys in China, India, Russia, South Africa, Ghana, and Mexico. PARTICIPANTS: Community-dwelling SAGE respondents aged 65 and older (N = 12,215). MEASUREMENTS: Objective mobility was assessed according to a 4-m timed walk at normal pace conducted in the respondent's home; slow walking speed was defined according to the Fried frailty criteria (lowest quintile of walking speed, adjusted for age and height). Self-reported mobility difficulty was assessed according to a question about ability to walk 1 km; this response was dichotomized into any versus no self-reported difficulty walking 1 km (reference no difficulty). The age- (5-year groups) and sex-specific probability of self-reporting difficulty walking 1 km was estimated in those with a measured slow walk using logistic regression. RESULTS: Between 42% and 76% of people aged 65 and older reported any difficulty walking 1 km. Average walking speed was slowest in Russia (0.61 m/s) and fastest in China (0.88 m/s). The probabilities of reporting any difficulty walking 1 km in women aged 65 to 69, for example, with a slow walk varied (China = 0.35, India = 0.90, Russia = 0.68, South Africa = 0.81, Ghana = 0.91, Mexico = 0.73; test of country differences P < .001). There was significant variation at older ages, albeit smaller in magnitude. Patterns were similar for men. CONCLUSION: Although correspondence between an objective and self-reported measure of mobility was generally high, correspondence differed significantly between LMICs. International comparisons of self-reported disability measures for clinical, prevention, and policy guidelines in LMICs should consider that self-reported data may not correspond to objective measures uniformly between countries.
OBJECTIVES: To assess the correspondence between self-reported and measured indicators of mobility disability in older adults in six low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). DESIGN: Cross-sectional analysis of Study on Global AGEing and Adult Health (SAGE). SETTING: Household surveys in China, India, Russia, South Africa, Ghana, and Mexico. PARTICIPANTS: Community-dwelling SAGE respondents aged 65 and older (N = 12,215). MEASUREMENTS: Objective mobility was assessed according to a 4-m timed walk at normal pace conducted in the respondent's home; slow walking speed was defined according to the Fried frailty criteria (lowest quintile of walking speed, adjusted for age and height). Self-reported mobility difficulty was assessed according to a question about ability to walk 1 km; this response was dichotomized into any versus no self-reported difficulty walking 1 km (reference no difficulty). The age- (5-year groups) and sex-specific probability of self-reporting difficulty walking 1 km was estimated in those with a measured slow walk using logistic regression. RESULTS: Between 42% and 76% of people aged 65 and older reported any difficulty walking 1 km. Average walking speed was slowest in Russia (0.61 m/s) and fastest in China (0.88 m/s). The probabilities of reporting any difficulty walking 1 km in women aged 65 to 69, for example, with a slow walk varied (China = 0.35, India = 0.90, Russia = 0.68, South Africa = 0.81, Ghana = 0.91, Mexico = 0.73; test of country differences P < .001). There was significant variation at older ages, albeit smaller in magnitude. Patterns were similar for men. CONCLUSION: Although correspondence between an objective and self-reported measure of mobility was generally high, correspondence differed significantly between LMICs. International comparisons of self-reported disability measures for clinical, prevention, and policy guidelines in LMICs should consider that self-reported data may not correspond to objective measures uniformly between countries.
Authors: Stephanie Studenski; Subashan Perera; Kushang Patel; Caterina Rosano; Kimberly Faulkner; Marco Inzitari; Jennifer Brach; Julie Chandler; Peggy Cawthon; Elizabeth Barrett Connor; Michael Nevitt; Marjolein Visser; Stephen Kritchevsky; Stefania Badinelli; Tamara Harris; Anne B Newman; Jane Cauley; Luigi Ferrucci; Jack Guralnik Journal: JAMA Date: 2011-01-05 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: L P Fried; C M Tangen; J Walston; A B Newman; C Hirsch; J Gottdiener; T Seeman; R Tracy; W J Kop; G Burke; M A McBurnie Journal: J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci Date: 2001-03 Impact factor: 6.053
Authors: Thomas M Gill; Dorothy I Baker; Margaret Gottschalk; Peter N Peduzzi; Heather Allore; Peter H Van Ness Journal: Arch Phys Med Rehabil Date: 2004-07 Impact factor: 3.966
Authors: Anne F Ambrose; Mohan L Noone; V G Pradeep; Beena Johnson; K A Salam; Joe Verghese Journal: Ann Indian Acad Neurol Date: 2010-12 Impact factor: 1.383
Authors: Joe Verghese; Emmeline Ayers; Nir Barzilai; David A Bennett; Aron S Buchman; Roee Holtzer; Mindy J Katz; Richard B Lipton; Cuiling Wang Journal: Neurology Date: 2014-10-31 Impact factor: 9.910
Authors: Joe Verghese; Cuiling Wang; David A Bennett; Richard B Lipton; Mindy J Katz; Emmeline Ayers Journal: Alzheimers Dement Date: 2019-06-01 Impact factor: 21.566
Authors: Perianayagam Arokiasamy; Paul Kowal; Benjamin D Capistrant; Theresa E Gildner; Elizabeth Thiele; Richard B Biritwum; Alfred E Yawson; George Mensah; Tamara Maximova; Fan Wu; Yanfei Guo; Yang Zheng; Sebastiana Zimba Kalula; Aarón Salinas Rodríguez; Betty Manrique Espinoza; Melissa A Liebert; Geeta Eick; Kirstin N Sterner; Tyler M Barrett; Kwabena Duedu; Ernest Gonzales; Nawi Ng; Joel Negin; Yong Jiang; Julie Byles; Savathree Lorna Madurai; Nadia Minicuci; J Josh Snodgrass; Nirmala Naidoo; Somnath Chatterji Journal: Am J Epidemiol Date: 2017-03-15 Impact factor: 4.897
Authors: Adina Zeki Al Hazzouri; Elizabeth Rose Mayeda; Tali Elfassy; Anne Lee; Michelle C Odden; Divya Thekkethala; Clinton B Wright; Maria M Glymour; Mary N Haan Journal: J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci Date: 2017-05-01 Impact factor: 6.053