Skip header and navigation

Refine By

3 records – page 1 of 1.

Do Associations Between Perceived Environmental and Individual Characteristics and Walking Limitations Depend on Lower Extremity Performance Level?

https://arctichealth.org/en/permalink/ahliterature291084
Source
J Aging Health. 2017 Jun; 29(4):640-656
Publication Type
Comparative Study
Journal Article
Date
Jun-2017
Author
Ritva Sakari
Merja Rantakokko
Erja Portegijs
Susanne Iwarsson
Sarianna Sipilä
Anne Viljanen
Taina Rantanen
Author Affiliation
1 University of Jyvaskyla, Finland.
Source
J Aging Health. 2017 Jun; 29(4):640-656
Date
Jun-2017
Language
English
Publication Type
Comparative Study
Journal Article
Keywords
Activities of Daily Living
Aged
Aged, 80 and over
Cross-Sectional Studies
Disability Evaluation
Environment
Female
Geriatric Assessment - methods
Humans
Independent living
Interviews as Topic
Lower Extremity - physiopathology
Male
Mobility Limitation
Perception
Physical Fitness - physiology
Sweden
Task Performance and Analysis
Walking - physiology
Abstract
The aim of this study was to analyze whether the associations between perceived environmental and individual characteristics and perceived walking limitations in older people differ between those with intact and those with poorer lower extremity performance.
Persons aged 75 to 90 ( N = 834) participated in interviews and performance tests in their homes. Standard questionnaires were used to obtain walking difficulties; environmental barriers to and, facilitators of, mobility; and perceived individual hindrances to outdoor mobility. Lower extremity performance was tested using Short Physical Performance Battery (SPPB).
Among those with poorer lower extremity performance, the likelihood for advanced walking limitations was, in particular, related to perceived poor safety in the environment, and among those with intact performance to perceived social issues, such as lack of company, as well as to long distances.
The environmental correlates of walking limitations seem to depend on the level of lower extremity performance.
PubMed ID
27056910 View in PubMed
Less detail

Promoting mobility after hip fracture (ProMo): study protocol and selected baseline results of a year-long randomized controlled trial among community-dwelling older people.

https://arctichealth.org/en/permalink/ahliterature129064
Source
BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2011;12:277
Publication Type
Article
Date
2011
Author
Sarianna Sipilä
Anu Salpakoski
Johanna Edgren
Ari Heinonen
Markku A Kauppinen
Marja Arkela-Kautiainen
Sanna E Sihvonen
Maija Pesola
Taina Rantanen
Mauri Kallinen
Author Affiliation
Gerontology Research Centre, University of Jyväskylä, Jyväskylä, Finland. sarianna.sipila@jyu.fi
Source
BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2011;12:277
Date
2011
Language
English
Publication Type
Article
Keywords
Age Factors
Aged
Aged, 80 and over
Aging
Biomechanical Phenomena
Disability Evaluation
Female
Finland
Hip Fractures - diagnosis - physiopathology - rehabilitation
Hip Joint - physiopathology
Humans
Independent living
Male
Middle Aged
Patient compliance
Physical Therapy Modalities
Program Evaluation
Range of Motion, Articular
Recovery of Function
Research Design
Time Factors
Treatment Outcome
Abstract
To cope at their homes, community-dwelling older people surviving a hip fracture need a sufficient amount of functional ability and mobility. There is a lack of evidence on the best practices supporting recovery after hip fracture. The purpose of this article is to describe the design, intervention and demographic baseline results of a study investigating the effects of a rehabilitation program aiming to restore mobility and functional capacity among community-dwelling participants after hip fracture.
Population-based sample of over 60-year-old community-dwelling men and women operated for hip fracture (n = 81, mean age 79 years, 78% were women) participated in this study and were randomly allocated into control (Standard Care) and ProMo intervention groups on average 10 weeks post fracture and 6 weeks after discharged to home. Standard Care included written home exercise program with 5-7 exercises for lower limbs. Of all participants, 12 got a referral to physiotherapy. After discharged to home, only 50% adhered to Standard Care. None of the participants were followed-up for Standard Care or mobility recovery. ProMo-intervention included Standard Care and a year-long program including evaluation/modification of environmental hazards, guidance for safe walking, pain management, progressive home exercise program and physical activity counseling. Measurements included a comprehensive battery of laboratory tests and self-report on mobility limitation, disability, physical functional capacity and health as well as assessments for the key prerequisites for mobility, disability and functional capacity. All assessments were performed blinded at the research laboratory. No significant differences were observed between intervention and control groups in any of the demographic variables.
Ten weeks post hip fracture only half of the participants were compliant to Standard Care. No follow-up for Standard Care or mobility recovery occurred. There is a need for rehabilitation and follow-up for mobility recovery after hip fracture. However, the effectiveness of the ProMo program can only be assessed at the end of the study.
Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN53680197.
Notes
Cites: Age Ageing. 2001 Nov;30(6):489-9411742778
Cites: J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci. 2000 Aug;55(8):M434-4010952365
Cites: J Gerontol B Psychol Sci Soc Sci. 2003 Sep;58(5):P283-9014507935
Cites: Arch Orthop Trauma Surg. 2003 Dec;123(10):551-413680273
Cites: J Am Geriatr Soc. 2004 Apr;52(4):625-3415066083
Cites: BMC Med Res Methodol. 2004 Apr 17;4:815090073
Cites: Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2004 May;85(5):710-615129393
Cites: Osteoporos Int. 2004 Jun;15(6):475-8215205719
Cites: JAMA. 2004 Aug 18;292(7):837-4615315998
Cites: Am J Med. 2004 Oct 15;117(8):569-7415465505
Cites: Schizophr Bull. 2000;26(3):533-4110993394
Cites: J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci. 2000 Sep;55(9):M498-50710995047
Cites: J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2001 Apr;83-A(4):493-50011315777
Cites: Clin Rehabil. 2001 Jun;15(3):282-9011386398
Cites: N Engl J Med. 2002 Oct 3;347(14):1068-7412362007
Cites: J Psychiatr Res. 1975 Nov;12(3):189-981202204
Cites: Acta Med Scand Suppl. 1986;711:233-73535411
Cites: J Gerontol. 1994 Mar;49(2):M85-948126356
Cites: J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci. 1995 Jan;50A(1):M28-347814786
Cites: Acta Physiol Scand. 1996 Apr;156(4):457-648732251
Cites: J Pers Assess. 1996 Dec;67(3):588-978991972
Cites: Calcif Tissue Int. 1999 Sep;65(3):183-710441647
Cites: J Am Geriatr Soc. 2004 Dec;52(12):2062-815571543
Cites: MMWR Recomm Rep. 2000 Mar 31;49(RR-2):3-1215580729
Cites: Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2005 Sep;86(9):1838-4216181951
Cites: Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2005 Oct;86(10):1953-716213237
Cites: J Clin Epidemiol. 2005 Dec;58(12):1289-9816291474
Cites: Prev Sci. 2005 Sep;6(3):151-7516365954
Cites: Psychol Med. 2006 Nov;36(11):1635-4516863598
Cites: Pain. 2007 Mar;128(1-2):69-7717055167
Cites: Scand J Med Sci Sports. 2007 Apr;17(2):156-6417394477
Cites: Osteoporos Int. 2007 Aug;18(8):1083-9017323107
Cites: Ann Behav Med. 2007 Aug;34(1):67-7617688398
Cites: Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2007 Aug;39(8):1423-3417762377
Cites: Am J Phys Med Rehabil. 2008 May;87(5):354-6218174852
Cites: Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2008 Sep;89(9):1667-7418760151
Cites: J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci. 2009 Jan;64(1):83-919164270
Cites: Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2009 Apr;90(4):618-2219345777
Cites: J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci. 2009 May;64(5):568-7419228788
Cites: J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2009 Jul;91(7):1720-819571095
Cites: Am J Epidemiol. 2009 Nov 15;170(10):1290-919808632
Cites: Gerontology. 2009;55(6):630-619776539
Cites: JAMA. 2009 Nov 25;302(20):2214-2119934422
Cites: Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2010 Jun;91(6):879-8420510978
Cites: Am J Phys Med Rehabil. 2010 Jul;89(7):530-4020567135
Cites: J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci. 2010 Sep;65(9):1012-2020530242
Cites: J Am Geriatr Soc. 2010 Oct;58(10):1911-720929467
Cites: JAMA. 2010 Nov 3;304(17):1919-2821045098
Cites: Gerontology. 2011;57(1):19-2720516668
Cites: Age Ageing. 2011 Mar;40(2):221-721247887
Cites: Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2011;(3):CD00170421412873
Cites: Bone. 2011 Apr 1;48(4):828-3621211578
Cites: Injury. 2011 Nov;42(11):1253-621238963
PubMed ID
22145912 View in PubMed
Less detail

Sense of coherence: effect on adherence and response to resistance training in older people with hip fracture history.

https://arctichealth.org/en/permalink/ahliterature115151
Source
J Aging Phys Act. 2014 Jan;22(1):138-45
Publication Type
Article
Date
Jan-2014
Author
Erja Portegijs
Sanna Read
Inka Pakkala
Mauri Kallinen
Ari Heinonen
Taina Rantanen
Markku Alen
Ilkka Kiviranta
Sanna Sihvonen
Sarianna Sipilä
Author Affiliation
Gerontology Research Center and Dept. of Health Sciences, University of Jyväskylä, Jyväskylä, Finland.
Source
J Aging Phys Act. 2014 Jan;22(1):138-45
Date
Jan-2014
Language
English
Publication Type
Article
Keywords
Activities of Daily Living
Aged
Aged, 80 and over
Female
Finland
Hip Fractures - physiopathology - psychology - rehabilitation
Humans
Independent living
Male
Mobility Limitation
Muscle Strength - physiology
Needs Assessment
Outcome Assessment (Health Care)
Patient Compliance - psychology - statistics & numerical data
Resistance Training - methods - statistics & numerical data
Sense of Coherence
Social Support
Walking - physiology
Abstract
Our aim was to study the effects of sense of coherence (SOC) on training adherence and interindividual changes in muscle strength, mobility, and balance after resistance training in older people with hip fracture history. These are secondary analyses of a 12-week randomized controlled trial of progressive resistance training in 60- to 85-year-old community-dwelling people 0.5-7 years after hip fracture (n = 45; ISRCTN34271567). Pre- and posttrial assessments included SOC, knee extension strength, walking speed, timed up-and-go (TUG), and Berg Balance Scale (BBS). Group-by-SOC interaction effects (repeated-measures ANOVA) were statistically significant for TUG (p = .005) and BBS (p = .040), but not for knee extension strength or walking speed. Weaker SOC was associated with poorer training adherence (mixed model; p = .009). Thus, more complicated physical tasks did not improve in those with weaker SOC, independently of training adherence. Older people with weaker SOC may need additional psychosocial support in physical rehabilitation programs to optimize training response.
PubMed ID
23538559 View in PubMed
Less detail