Holly E Syddall1, Leo D Westbury2, Cyrus Cooper2, Avan Aihie Sayer3. 1. MRC Lifecourse Epidemiology Unit, University of Southampton, Southampton General Hospital, Southampton, UK. Electronic address: hes@mrc.soton.ac.uk. 2. MRC Lifecourse Epidemiology Unit, University of Southampton, Southampton General Hospital, Southampton, UK. 3. MRC Lifecourse Epidemiology Unit, University of Southampton, Southampton General Hospital, Southampton, UK; Faculty of Medicine, Academic Geriatric Medicine, University of Southampton, Southampton General Hospital, Southampton, UK.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Walking speed is central to emerging consensus definitions of sarcopenia and frailty as well as being a major predictor of future health outcomes in its own right. However, measurement is not always feasible in clinical settings. We hypothesized that self-reported walking speed might be a good marker of objectively measured walking speed for use in this context. METHODS: We investigated the relationship between self-reported and measured walking speed and their associations with clinical characteristics and mortality using data from 730 men and 999 women, aged 61 to 73 years, who participated in the Hertfordshire Cohort Study. Walking speed was measured over 3 meters. Participants rated their walking speed as "unable to walk," "very slow," "stroll at an easy pace," "normal speed," "fairly brisk," or "fast." RESULTS: Self-reported walking speed was strongly associated with measured walking speed among men and women (P < .001). Average walking speeds ranged from 0.78 m/s (95% CI 0.73-0.83) among men with "very slow" self-reported walking speed to 0.98 m/s (95% CI 0.93-1.03) among "fast" walkers (corresponding figures for women were 0.72 m/s [95% CI 0.68-0.75] and 1.01 m/s [95% CI 0.98-1.05]). Self-reported and measured walking speeds were similarly associated with clinical characteristics and mortality; among men and women, slower self-reported and measured walking speeds were associated (P < .05) with increased likelihood of poor physical function, having more systems medicated and with increased mortality risk, with and without adjustment for sociodemographic and lifestyle factors (hazard ratios for mortality per slower band of self-reported walking speed, adjusted for sociodemographic and lifestyle characteristics: men 1.44 [95% CI 1.11-1.87]; women 1.35 [95% CI 1.02-1.81]). CONCLUSION AND IMPLICATIONS: Self-reported walking speed is a good marker of measured walking speed and could serve as a useful marker of physical performance in consensus definitions of sarcopenia and frailty when direct measurement of walking speed is not feasible.
BACKGROUND: Walking speed is central to emerging consensus definitions of sarcopenia and frailty as well as being a major predictor of future health outcomes in its own right. However, measurement is not always feasible in clinical settings. We hypothesized that self-reported walking speed might be a good marker of objectively measured walking speed for use in this context. METHODS: We investigated the relationship between self-reported and measured walking speed and their associations with clinical characteristics and mortality using data from 730 men and 999 women, aged 61 to 73 years, who participated in the Hertfordshire Cohort Study. Walking speed was measured over 3 meters. Participants rated their walking speed as "unable to walk," "very slow," "stroll at an easy pace," "normal speed," "fairly brisk," or "fast." RESULTS: Self-reported walking speed was strongly associated with measured walking speed among men and women (P < .001). Average walking speeds ranged from 0.78 m/s (95% CI 0.73-0.83) among men with "very slow" self-reported walking speed to 0.98 m/s (95% CI 0.93-1.03) among "fast" walkers (corresponding figures for women were 0.72 m/s [95% CI 0.68-0.75] and 1.01 m/s [95% CI 0.98-1.05]). Self-reported and measured walking speeds were similarly associated with clinical characteristics and mortality; among men and women, slower self-reported and measured walking speeds were associated (P < .05) with increased likelihood of poor physical function, having more systems medicated and with increased mortality risk, with and without adjustment for sociodemographic and lifestyle factors (hazard ratios for mortality per slower band of self-reported walking speed, adjusted for sociodemographic and lifestyle characteristics: men 1.44 [95% CI 1.11-1.87]; women 1.35 [95% CI 1.02-1.81]). CONCLUSION AND IMPLICATIONS: Self-reported walking speed is a good marker of measured walking speed and could serve as a useful marker of physical performance in consensus definitions of sarcopenia and frailty when direct measurement of walking speed is not feasible.
Authors: Päivi Sainio; Seppo Koskinen; Markku Heliövaara; Tuija Martelin; Tommi Härkänen; Heikki Hurri; Seppo Miilunpalo; Arpo Aromaa Journal: Scand J Public Health Date: 2006 Impact factor: 3.021
Authors: Alfonso J Cruz-Jentoft; Jean Pierre Baeyens; Jürgen M Bauer; Yves Boirie; Tommy Cederholm; Francesco Landi; Finbarr C Martin; Jean-Pierre Michel; Yves Rolland; Stéphane M Schneider; Eva Topinková; Maurits Vandewoude; Mauro Zamboni Journal: Age Ageing Date: 2010-04-13 Impact factor: 10.668
Authors: G Abellan van Kan; Y Rolland; H Bergman; J E Morley; S B Kritchevsky; B Vellas Journal: J Nutr Health Aging Date: 2008-01 Impact factor: 4.075
Authors: G Abellan van Kan; Y Rolland; S Andrieu; J Bauer; O Beauchet; M Bonnefoy; M Cesari; L M Donini; S Gillette Guyonnet; M Inzitari; F Nourhashemi; G Onder; P Ritz; A Salva; M Visser; B Vellas Journal: J Nutr Health Aging Date: 2009-12 Impact factor: 4.075
Authors: Susan E Hardy; Subashan Perera; Yazan F Roumani; Julie M Chandler; Stephanie A Studenski Journal: J Am Geriatr Soc Date: 2007-10-03 Impact factor: 5.562
Authors: Keith T Palmer; Stefania D'Angelo; E Clare Harris; Cathy Linaker; Catharine R Gale; Maria Evandrou; Holly Syddall; Tjeerd van Staa; Cyrus Cooper; Avan Aihie Sayer; David Coggon; Karen Walker-Bone Journal: Occup Environ Med Date: 2017-01-06 Impact factor: 4.402
Authors: G Ntani; P F Day; J Baird; K M Godfrey; S M Robinson; C Cooper; H M Inskip Journal: J Dev Orig Health Dis Date: 2015-05-04 Impact factor: 2.401
Authors: Thomas J Wilkinson; Joanne Miksza; Thomas Yates; Courtney J Lightfoot; Luke A Baker; Emma L Watson; Francesco Zaccardi; Alice C Smith Journal: J Cachexia Sarcopenia Muscle Date: 2021-05-05 Impact factor: 12.063
Authors: He Zhou; Catherine Park; Mohammad Shahbazi; Michele K York; Mark E Kunik; Aanand D Naik; Bijan Najafi Journal: Gerontology Date: 2021-05-10 Impact factor: 5.597
Authors: Maria T Sanchez Santos; Esther Williamson; Julie Bruce; Lesley Ward; Christian D Mallen; Angela Garrett; Alana Morris; Sarah E Lamb Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2020-09-03 Impact factor: 2.692
Authors: Aleš Gába; Roman Cuberek; Zdeněk Svoboda; František Chmelík; Jana Pelclová; Michal Lehnert; Karel Frömel Journal: BMC Womens Health Date: 2016-09-21 Impact factor: 2.809
Authors: Thomas Yates; Francesco Zaccardi; Nafeesa N Dhalwani; Melanie J Davies; Kishan Bakrania; Carlos A Celis-Morales; Jason M R Gill; Paul W Franks; Kamlesh Khunti Journal: Eur Heart J Date: 2017-11-14 Impact factor: 29.983