PURPOSE: The Timed Up and Go (TUG) test is a reliable, cost-effective, safe, and time-efficient way to evaluate overall functional mobility. However, the TUG does not have normative reference values (NRV) for individuals younger than 60 years. The purpose of this study was to establish NRV for the TUG for individuals aged between 20 and 59 years and to examine the relationship between the TUG and demographic, physical, and mental health risk factors. METHODS: Two hundred participants, 50 per decade (ages 20-29, 30-39, 40-49, 50-59 years) were selected at their primary care visit, and timed as they performed the TUG by standing up out of a chair, walking 3 m, turning around, walking back to the chair, and sitting down. Information regarding the risk factors socioeconomic status, body mass index, an index of multimorbidities, perceptions of overall physical and mental health was obtained and used as predictors of TUG time independent of age. RESULTS: TUG times were significantly different among the decades ( F = 6.579, P = .001) with slower times occurring with the 50-year-old decade compared with the 20s ( P = .001), 30s ( P = .001), and 40s ( P = .020). Slower TUG times were associated with lower SES, higher body mass index, more medical comorbidities, and worse perceived physical and mental health. Regression results indicated that perceived physical and mental health accounted for unique variance in the prediction of TUG time beyond age, gender, and socioeconomic status. CONCLUSIONS: This study provided TUG NRV for adults in their 20s, 30s, 40s, and 50s. The TUG may have utility for primary care providers as they assess and monitor physical activity in younger adults, especially those with physical and mental health risk factors.
PURPOSE: The Timed Up and Go (TUG) test is a reliable, cost-effective, safe, and time-efficient way to evaluate overall functional mobility. However, the TUG does not have normative reference values (NRV) for individuals younger than 60 years. The purpose of this study was to establish NRV for the TUG for individuals aged between 20 and 59 years and to examine the relationship between the TUG and demographic, physical, and mental health risk factors. METHODS: Two hundred participants, 50 per decade (ages 20-29, 30-39, 40-49, 50-59 years) were selected at their primary care visit, and timed as they performed the TUG by standing up out of a chair, walking 3 m, turning around, walking back to the chair, and sitting down. Information regarding the risk factors socioeconomic status, body mass index, an index of multimorbidities, perceptions of overall physical and mental health was obtained and used as predictors of TUG time independent of age. RESULTS: TUG times were significantly different among the decades ( F = 6.579, P = .001) with slower times occurring with the 50-year-old decade compared with the 20s ( P = .001), 30s ( P = .001), and 40s ( P = .020). Slower TUG times were associated with lower SES, higher body mass index, more medical comorbidities, and worse perceived physical and mental health. Regression results indicated that perceived physical and mental health accounted for unique variance in the prediction of TUG time beyond age, gender, and socioeconomic status. CONCLUSIONS: This study provided TUG NRV for adults in their 20s, 30s, 40s, and 50s. The TUG may have utility for primary care providers as they assess and monitor physical activity in younger adults, especially those with physical and mental health risk factors.
Entities:
Keywords:
TUG test; normative reference values; physical activity; primary care
Authors: Daniel I Galper; Madhukar H Trivedi; Carolyn E Barlow; Andrea L Dunn; James B Kampert Journal: Med Sci Sports Exerc Date: 2006-01 Impact factor: 5.411
Authors: Ana J Bridges; Samantha J Gregus; Juventino Hernandez Rodriguez; Arthur R Andrews; Bianca T Villalobos; Freddie A Pastrana; Timothy A Cavell Journal: J Consult Clin Psychol Date: 2015-03-16
Authors: Tara M Brinkman; Kirsten K Ness; Zhenghong Li; I-Chan Huang; Kevin R Krull; Amar Gajjar; Thomas E Merchant; James L Klosky; Robyn E Partin; Ingrid Tonning Olsson; Frederick Boop; Paul Klimo; Wassim Chemaitilly; Raja B Khan; Deokumar Srivastava; Leslie L Robison; Melissa M Hudson; Gregory T Armstrong Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2018-08-09 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Michael F Salvatore; Isabel Soto; Ella A Kasanga; Rachael James; Marla K Shifflet; Kirby Doshier; Joel T Little; Joshia John; Helene M Alphonso; J Thomas Cunningham; Vicki A Nejtek Journal: J Parkinsons Dis Date: 2022 Impact factor: 5.520
Authors: Ross D Dolan; Louise E Daly; Claribel Pl Simmons; Aoife M Ryan; Wei Mj Sim; Marie Fallon; Derek G Power; Andrew Wilcock; Matthew Maddocks; Michael I Bennett; Caroline Usborne; Barry J Laird; Donald C McMillan Journal: Cancers (Basel) Date: 2020-05-08 Impact factor: 6.639
Authors: Ingrid Tonning Olsson; Nicole M Alberts; Chenghong Li; Matthew J Ehrhardt; Daniel A Mulrooney; Wei Liu; Alberto S Pappo; Michael W Bishop; Doralina L Anghelescu; Deokumar Srivastava; Leslie L Robison; Melissa M Hudson; Kirsten K Ness; Kevin R Krull; Tara M Brinkman Journal: Cancer Date: 2020-12-28 Impact factor: 6.921
Authors: Victor E Staartjes; Holger Joswig; Marco V Corniola; Karl Schaller; Oliver P Gautschi; Martin N Stienen Journal: Global Spine J Date: 2020-12-17