Search

Background We examined the role of social frailty in the association between hearing problems and mild cognitive impairment (MCI), and investigated which cognitive impairment domains are most strongly involved. Methods Participants were 4251 older adults (mean age 72.5 ± 5.2 years, 46.1% male) who met the study inclusion criteria. Hearing problems were measured using the Hearing Handicap Inventory for the Elderly. Social frailty was identified using responses to five questions. Participants were divided into four groups depending on the presence of social frailty and hearing problems: control, social frailty, hearing problem, and co-occurrence. We assessed memory, attention, executive function, and processing speed using the National Center for Geriatrics and Gerontology-Functional Assessment Tool. Participants were categorized into normal cognition, single- and multiple-domain MCI, depending on the number of impaired cognitive domains. Results Participants with multiple-domain MCI exhibited the highest odds ratios (OR) of the co-occurrence group (OR: 3.89, 95% confidence intervals [CI]: 1.96–7.72), followed by the social frailty (OR: 2.65, 95% CI: 1.49–4.67), and hearing problem (OR: 1.90, 95% CI: 1.08–3.34) groups, compared with the control group. However, single-domain MCI was not significantly associated with any group. Cognitive domain analysis revealed that impaired executive function and processing speed were associated with the co-occurrence, hearing problem, and social frailty groups, respectively. Conclusions Social frailty and hearing problems were independently associated with multiple-domain MCI. Comorbid conditions were more strongly associated with multiple-domain MCI. Longitudinal studies are needed to elucidate the causal role of social frailty in the association between hearing impairment and MCI. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The purpose of this longitudinal study was to examine the association between habitual walking and multiple or injurious falls (falls) among community-dwelling older adults, by considering the relative risk of falling. A cohort of Japanese community-dwelling older adults ( n = 535) aged 60–91 years (73.1 ± 6.6 year, 157 men and 378 women) who underwent community-based health check-ups from 2008 to 2012 were followed until 2013. Incidence rate of falls between walkers and non-walkers was compared separately by the number of risk factors (Groups R0, R1, R2, R3 and R4+). The Cox proportional hazard model was used to assess the association between habitual walking and falls separately by lower- ( R < 2) and higher- ( R ≥ 2) risk groups. In Groups R0 and R1, the incidence of falls was lower in walkers than non-walkers; however, in Groups R2, R3, and R4+, the incidence of falls was higher in walkers. The Cox proportional hazard model showed that habitual walking was not significantly associated with falls (hazard ratio (HR): 0.88, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.48–1.62) among the lower risk group but that it was significantly associated with increased falls (HR: 1.89, 95% CI: 1.04–3.43) among the higher risk group. The significant interaction between habitual walking and higher risk of falling was found ( P < 0.05). When individuals have two or more risk factors for falling, caution is needed when recommending walking because walking can actually increase their risk of experiencing multiple or injurious falls. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract: Although usual gait speed (UGS) is considered an indicator of overall well-being, it is unclear whether upper extremity performance (UEP) measures provide a similar, additive contribution to functional status. We aimed to identify whether combining UEP measures can more accurately discriminate upper extremity functional limitation (UE limitation) and disability compared to UGS. We conducted a cross-sectional analysis on data from 322 community-dwelling older women, aged 65–96 years. Trained testers assessed UGS, and hand-grip strength (GRIP), functional reach (FR), back scratch, manipulating pegs (PEG), and moving beans with chopsticks as UEP measures. We assessed three functional statuses: UE limitation, activities of daily living (ADLs) and instrumental ADLs (IADLs) disabilities using self-reported questionnaires. Areas under the receiver operating characteristic curves (AUCs) were used to compare the discriminating power of UGS, with the individual and combined UEP measures for each status. Among UEP measures, only GRIP (AUC=0.68 for UE limitation, 0.81 for IADLs disability, and 0.84 for ADLs disability) could accurately discriminate each status as well as UGS (AUC=0.65, 0.83, and 0.91, respectively). Furthermore, UGS alone could discriminate UE limitation almost as well as the combination of GRIP, PEG, and FR (AUC=0.70). Combining other UEP measures did not help discriminate further. There were few advantages to combining UEP measures, and UGS or GRIP alone may suffice for assessing UE limitation and disability. However, the UGS should be the test of first choice, certainly more than GRIP, in routine assessment of functional limitation and disability, including UE limitation. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

Abstract: Overall physical performance can be represented by a composite score that is derived from upper and lower extremity performance measures. We aimed to identify whether composite scores of performance measures, particularly the lower extremity performance (LEP) score, upper extremity performance (UEP) score, and an overall score, are more accurate than usual gait speed (UGS) for assessing a wide range of functional status. We conducted a cross-sectional analysis on data from 701 community-dwelling older women (mean age 74.3 years). Trained testers measured UGS and the seven tests included in the composite scores. Using self-reported questionnaires, we assessed multiphasic functional status: physical function, higher-level functional capacity, mobility limitation, activities of daily living (ADLs), and falls. We compared the areas under the receiver operating characteristic curves (AUCs) of UGS with LEP, UEP, and overall scores for each status. We found no significant differences between the AUCs of UGS and LEP score for each status. The UEP score had significantly smaller AUCs for low physical function (0.73) and mobility limitation (0.78) than UGS alone (0.81 and 0.85, respectively), and the differences were substantial. Although the overall score had significantly greater AUCs for low higher-level functional capacity (0.83) and ADLs disability (0.83) than UGS alone (0.78 and 0.80, respectively), the differences were only 3–5%. The UGS should not be regarded solely as a measure of lower extremity function; this single test may represent overall physical performance. The UGS alone, which can be measured quickly and easily, suffice for assessing a wide range of functional status in older women. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]