| Literature DB >> 31871383 |
Kazuki Kimura1, Toshi Nishikura2.
Abstract
[Purpose] Evaluation of motor function in preventive care services using a convenient method is necessary. The two-step test is clinically useful in evaluating motor function. Thus, we aimed to assess motor function using the two-step test in day care service type C. [Participants and Methods] The two-step test value and motor function used in day care service type C were evaluated in 23 elderly females (mean age: 77.4 ± 6.7 years).Entities:
Keywords: Elderly females; Preventive care service; Two-step test
Year: 2019 PMID: 31871383 PMCID: PMC6879404 DOI: 10.1589/jpts.31.946
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Phys Ther Sci ISSN: 0915-5287
Evaluation results of 23 local residents who participated in the type C day care service
| Mean ± SD | |
|---|---|
| Two-step value | 1.10 ± 0.23 |
| Gait speed (m/s) | 1.49 ± 0.28 |
| Step length (cm) | 57.8 ± 8.3 |
| TUG (s) | 8.2 ± 1.8 |
| OLS (s) | 17.0 ± 17.6 |
| SS-5 (s) | 13.0 ± 3.1 |
| Grip (kg) | 19.8 ± 3.3 |
| CC (cm) | 31.9 ± 2.0 |
| Impaired sensation | 5/23 |
| Fall experience (n) | 9/23 |
Mean ± SD.
TUG: Timed Up and Go test; OLS: One Leg Standing with the eyes open; SS-5: Sit to stand-5; CC: calf circumference.
Correlation of basic information with motor function
| Age | Height | Weight | BMI | Two-step value | Gait speed | Stride length | TUG | OLS | SS-5 | Grip | CC | Foot of sense | Fall | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Age | 1 | −0.207 | −0.007 | 0.134 | −0.100 | 0.094 | −0.076 | 0.196 | 0.134 | −0.262 | 0.083 | −0.040 | −0.113 | −0.102 |
| Height | −0.207 | 1 | 0.025 | −0.571* | 0.627* | 0.290 | 0.567* | −0.495* | 0.194 | −0.212 | 0.468* | 0.033 | −0.016 | −0.054 |
| Weight | −0.007 | 0.025 | 1 | 0.804* | −0.049 | −0.206 | −0.210 | −0.020 | −0.485* | 0.246 | 0.226 | 0.752* | 0.032 | −0.201 |
| BMI | 0.134 | −0.571* | 0.804* | 1 | −0.408 | −0.340 | −0.514* | 0.275 | −0.514* | 0.320 | −0.100 | 0.608* | 0.207 | −0.114 |
| Two-step value | −0.100 | 0.627* | −0.049 | −0.408 | 1 | 0.556* | 0.636* | −0.790* | 0.419* | −0.371 | 0.244 | −0.037 | −0.422† | −0.222 |
| Gait speed | 0.094 | 0.290 | −0.206 | −0.340 | 0.556* | 1 | 0.752* | −0.665* | 0.296 | −0.586* | 0.075 | −0.037 | −0.327 | −0.222 |
| Step length | −0.076 | 0.567* | −0.210 | −0.514* | 0.636* | 0.752* | 1 | −0.688* | 0.294 | −0.405 | 0.157 | −0.045 | −0.328 | −0.083 |
| TUG | 0.196 | −0.495* | −0.020 | 0.275 | −0.790* | −0.665* | −0.688* | 1 | −0.071 | 0.455* | −0.014 | −0.011 | 0.310 | 0.229 |
| OLS | 0.134 | 0.194 | −0.485* | −0.514* | 0.419* | 0.296 | 0.294 | −0.071 | 1 | −0.313 | 0.088 | −0.397 | −0.350 | −0.087 |
| SS-5 | −0.262 | −0.212 | 0.246 | 0.320 | −0.371 | −0.586* | −0.405 | 0.455* | −0.313 | 1 | 0.144 | 0.218 | 0.254 | 0.564† |
| Grip | 0.083 | 0.468* | 0.226 | −0.100 | 0.244 | 0.075 | 0.157 | −0.014 | 0.088 | 0.144 | 1 | −0.019 | 0.080 | 0.040 |
| CC | −0.040 | 0.033 | 0.752* | 0.608* | −0.037 | −0.037 | −0.045 | −0.011 | −0.397 | 0.218 | −0.019 | 1 | −0.175 | −0.054 |
| Foot of sense | −0.113 | −0.016 | 0.032 | 0.207 | −0.422† | −0.327 | −0.328 | 0.310 | −0.350 | 0.254 | 0.080 | −0.175 | 1 | 0.009 |
| Fall | −0.102 | −0.054 | −0.201 | −0.114 | −0.222 | −0.222 | −0.083 | 0.229 | −0.087 | 0.564† | 0.040 | −0.054 | 0.009 | 1 |
*Pearson’s correlation coefficient (p<0.05). †Spearman’s correlation coefficient (p<0.05). Foot of sense was quantified such that normal was “0” and sensory disorders was “1”. For falls after the age of 65, we used “0” for those who had never fallen and “1” for those who had fallen. BMI: body mass index; TUG: Timed Up and Go test; OLS: One Leg Standing with opened eye; SS-5: Sit to stand-5; CC: calf circumference.
Fig. 1.Motor function with two-step test showing high correlation with step length and the results of Timed Up and Go test (TUG).