Sarah A Welch1, Rachel E Ward2, Marla K Beauchamp3, Suzanne G Leveille4, Thomas Travison5, Jonathan F Bean6. 1. Department of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, TN, USA. Electronic address: sarah.welch@vumc.org. 2. New England Geriatric Research and Education Clinical Center (GRECC), VA Boston Healthcare System, Boston, MA, USA; Massachusetts Veterans Epidemiology and Research Information Center (MAVERIC), VA Boston Healthcare System, Boston, MA, USA; Department of PM&R, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA; Spaulding Rehabilitation Hospital, Boston, MA, USA. 3. School of Rehabilitation Science, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada; Department of Medicine, McMaster University Hamilton, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. 4. College of Nursing and Health Sciences, University of Massachusetts Boston, Boston, MA, USA; Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, MA, USA; Department of Medicine, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA. 5. Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, MA, USA; Department of Medicine, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA; Institute for Aging Research, Hebrew Senior Life, Boston, MA, USA. 6. New England Geriatric Research and Education Clinical Center (GRECC), VA Boston Healthcare System, Boston, MA, USA; Department of PM&R, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA; Spaulding Rehabilitation Hospital, Boston, MA, USA.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Evaluate fall risk with the Short Physical Performance Battery (SPPB) and examine its application within the Stopping Elderly Accidents, Deaths, and Injuries (STEADI) tool advocated by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. DESIGN: Prospective longitudinal cohort study. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: 417 community-dwelling adults aged ≥65 years at risk for mobility decline, recruited from 9 primary care practices. METHODS: The SPPB, a 3-part performance-based test (gait time, chair stand, and balance), was assessed at baseline. Previously established cutpoints were used to categorize participant scores into 3 groups: low, middle, and best performers. Self-reported falls were assessed in-person at baseline and via phone interviews quarterly for 4 years. Multivariable negative binomial regression models were used to evaluate the relationship of the SPPB and each of its 3 components with fall rates over 1 and 4 years of follow-up. Additional analysis were stratified by fall risk screen status (+/-) based on self-reported fall history and balance self-efficacy using an adapted STEADI model. RESULTS: Participants had median age 76 years (interquartile range 70-82) and were 67.2% female with mean baseline SPPB 8.7 ± 2.3. Poor performance on the SPPB and on each of its 3 components independently predicted higher fall risk in the first year. After 4 years, the low total baseline SPPB [rate ratio (RR) 1.53, confidence interval (CI) 1.09-2.17] and gait time performances (RR 1.61, CI 1.07-2.41) predicted higher fall risk. After stratifying the sample according to the STEADI model, we observed the highest 1-year fall risk among those with a (+) fall risk screen who also scored lowest on the SPPB. CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS: The SPPB is a performance measure with clinical utility for fall risk stratification over 1 and 4 years of follow-up among older adults. It shows promise as a complement to the STEADI guidelines, but its full benefits should be confirmed within a larger study. Published by Elsevier Inc.
OBJECTIVES: Evaluate fall risk with the Short Physical Performance Battery (SPPB) and examine its application within the Stopping Elderly Accidents, Deaths, and Injuries (STEADI) tool advocated by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. DESIGN: Prospective longitudinal cohort study. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: 417 community-dwelling adults aged ≥65 years at risk for mobility decline, recruited from 9 primary care practices. METHODS: The SPPB, a 3-part performance-based test (gait time, chair stand, and balance), was assessed at baseline. Previously established cutpoints were used to categorize participant scores into 3 groups: low, middle, and best performers. Self-reported falls were assessed in-person at baseline and via phone interviews quarterly for 4 years. Multivariable negative binomial regression models were used to evaluate the relationship of the SPPB and each of its 3 components with fall rates over 1 and 4 years of follow-up. Additional analysis were stratified by fall risk screen status (+/-) based on self-reported fall history and balance self-efficacy using an adapted STEADI model. RESULTS: Participants had median age 76 years (interquartile range 70-82) and were 67.2% female with mean baseline SPPB 8.7 ± 2.3. Poor performance on the SPPB and on each of its 3 components independently predicted higher fall risk in the first year. After 4 years, the low total baseline SPPB [rate ratio (RR) 1.53, confidence interval (CI) 1.09-2.17] and gait time performances (RR 1.61, CI 1.07-2.41) predicted higher fall risk. After stratifying the sample according to the STEADI model, we observed the highest 1-year fall risk among those with a (+) fall risk screen who also scored lowest on the SPPB. CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS: The SPPB is a performance measure with clinical utility for fall risk stratification over 1 and 4 years of follow-up among older adults. It shows promise as a complement to the STEADI guidelines, but its full benefits should be confirmed within a larger study. Published by Elsevier Inc.
Authors: Mélany Hars; Marie-Claude Audet; François Herrmann; Jean De Chassey; René Rizzoli; Jean-Luc Reny; Gabriel Gold; Serge Ferrari; Andrea Trombetti Journal: J Bone Miner Res Date: 2018-02-05 Impact factor: 6.741
Authors: Kathleen Kline Mangione; Rebecca L Craik; Alyson A McCormick; Heather L Blevins; Meaghan B White; Eileen M Sullivan-Marx; James D Tomlinson Journal: Phys Ther Date: 2010-04-15
Authors: Devinder K A Singh; Sharmila G K Pillai; Sin Thien Tan; Chu Chiau Tai; Suzana Shahar Journal: Clin Interv Aging Date: 2015-08-13 Impact factor: 4.458
Authors: Rita Pavasini; Jack Guralnik; Justin C Brown; Mauro di Bari; Matteo Cesari; Francesco Landi; Bert Vaes; Delphine Legrand; Joe Verghese; Cuiling Wang; Sari Stenholm; Luigi Ferrucci; Jennifer C Lai; Anna Arnau Bartes; Joan Espaulella; Montserrat Ferrer; Jae-Young Lim; Kristine E Ensrud; Peggy Cawthon; Anna Turusheva; Elena Frolova; Yves Rolland; Valerie Lauwers; Andrea Corsonello; Gregory D Kirk; Roberto Ferrari; Stefano Volpato; Gianluca Campo Journal: BMC Med Date: 2016-12-22 Impact factor: 8.775
Authors: Woo-Chul Park; Miji Kim; Sunyoung Kim; Jinho Yoo; Byung Sung Kim; Jinmann Chon; Su Jin Jeong; Chang Won Won Journal: Ann Rehabil Med Date: 2019-02-28
Authors: Katharina Scholz; Johanna Geritz; Jennifer Kudelka; Marten Rogalski; Katharina Niemann; Corina Maetzler; Julius Welzel; Michael Drey; Tino Prell; Walter Maetzler Journal: Front Med (Lausanne) Date: 2022-06-21
Authors: Xiao Hu; Yejin Mok; Ning Ding; Kevin J Sullivan; Pamela L Lutsey; Jennifer A Schrack; Priya Palta; Kunihiro Matsushita Journal: J Am Heart Assoc Date: 2022-08-31 Impact factor: 6.106
Authors: Hannah Park; Courtney Aul; Joseph DeGutis; On-Yee Lo; Victoria N Poole; Regina McGlinchey; Jonathan F Bean; Elizabeth Leritz; Michael Esterman Journal: Front Aging Neurosci Date: 2021-07-05 Impact factor: 5.750