Search

Background: There is growing recognition of the importance of sex and gender differences within falls literature, but the characterization of such literature is uncertain. The aim of this scoping review was to (1) map the nature and extent of falls literature examining sex or gender differences among older adults, and (2) identify gaps and opportunities for further research and practice. Methods: We used a scoping review methodology. Eligible studies included participants with a mean age of ≥60 years and study aims specifying falls and either sex or gender concepts. MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, Ageline, and Psychinfo databases were searched from inception to March 2, 2022. Records were screened and charted by six independent reviewers. Descriptive and narrative reports were generated. Results: A total of 15,266 records were screened and 74 studies were included. Most studies reported on sex and gender differences in fall risk factors (n = 52, 70%), incidence/prevalence (n = 26, 35%), fall consequences (n = 22, 30%), and fall characteristics (n = 15, 20%). The majority of studies (n = 70, 95%) found significant sex or gender differences in relation to falls, with 39 (53%) identifying significant sex differences and 31 (42%) identifying significant gender differences. However, only three (4%) studies defined sex or gender concepts and only nine (12%) studies used sex or gender terms appropriately. Fifty‐six (76%) studies had more female participants than males. Four (5%) were intervention studies. Studies did not report falls in line with guidelines nor use common fall definitions. Conclusion: Sex and gender differences are commonly reported in falls literature. It is critical for future research to use sex and gender terms appropriately and include similar sample sizes across all genders and sexes. In addition, there is a need to examine more gender‐diverse populations and to develop interventions to prevent falls that address sex and gender differences among older adults. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background and aims: Performance-based tests of mobility or physical function such as the Timed Up and Go (TUG), gait speed, chair-rise, and single-leg stance (SLS) are often administered using different protocols in aging populations, however, the reliability of their assessment protocols is not often considered. The purpose of this study was to examine the reliabilities of frequently used assessment protocols for the TUG, gait speed, chair-rise, and SLS in different age groups. Methods: We administered the following assessment protocols in an age-stratified (50–64, 65–74, 75+ years) sample of participants (N = 147) from the Canadian Longitudinal Study on Aging (CLSA): TUG fast pace and TUG normal pace: TUG-cognitive counting backwards by ones and counting back by threes, gait speed with 3-m and 4-m course, chair-rise with arms crossed and allowing the use of arms, and SLS using preferred leg or both legs—on two occasions within 1 week. We assessed the relative (intra-class correlation) and absolute reliability (standard error of measurement, SEM and minimal detectable change, MDC) for each protocol variation and provided recommendations based on relative reliability. Results: For participants aged 50–64 years, our results suggest better reliability for TUG fast-pace compared with normal-pace (ICC and 95% CI 0.70; 0.41–0.85 versus 0.38; 0.12–0.59). The reliability values for 3-m gait speed were potentially higher than for 4-m gait speed (ICC 0.75; 0.67–0.82 versus 0.64; 0.54–0.73) and values for chair-rise suggested better reliability allowing participants to use their arms than with arms crossed (ICC 0.79; 0.66–0.86 versus 0.64; 0.45–0.77) for participants overall. For participants aged 75+ years, ICCs for SLS with the preferred leg showed better reliability than for both legs (ICC = 0.62–0.79 versus 0.30–0.39). Conclusions and discussion: These reliability data and the recommendations can help guide the selection of the most appropriate performance-based test protocols for measuring mobility in middle-aged and older community-dwelling adults. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background Guidelines for fall prevention in older adults recommend mobility screening for fall risk assessment; however, there is no consensus on which test to use and at what cutoff. This study aimed to determine the accuracy and optimal cut-off values of commonly used mobility tests for predicting falls in the Canadian Longitudinal Study on Aging (CLSA). Methods Mobility tests at baseline included the Timed Up and Go (TUG), Single Leg Stance (SLS), chair-rise and gait speed. Inclusion criteria were: age ≥ 65 years and meeting first-level fall screening criteria (i.e. history of a fall or mobility problem) at baseline. Accuracy of fall prediction at 18-months for each test was measured by the area under the receiver operating curve (AUC). Results Of 1,121 participants that met inclusion criteria (mean age 75.2 ± 5.9 years; 66.6% women), 218 (19.4%) reported ≥one fall at 18 months. None of the tests achieved acceptable accuracy for identifying individuals with ≥one fall at follow-up. Among women 65–74 and 75–85 years, the TUG identified recurrent fallers (≥two falls) with optimal cut-off scores of 14.1 and 12.9 s (both AUCs 0.70), respectively. Among men 65–74 years, only the SLS showed acceptable accuracy (AUC 0.85) for identifying recurrent fallers with an optimal cutoff of 3.6 s. Conclusions Our findings indicate that commonly used mobility tests do not have sufficient discriminability to identify fallers in a population-based sample of community-dwelling older adults. The TUG and SLS can identify recurrent fallers; however, their accuracy and cut-off values vary by age and sex. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

To evaluate the acceptability, reliability (inter- and intrarater), and validity (convergent, known groups, and predictive) of virtually administered gait speed tests for community-dwelling older adults. A prospective cohort study was performed, tracking health outcomes for a year. The 3-m gait speed test at usual and fast pace was administered to community-dwelling older adults over Zoom. To examine acceptability, participants completed questionnaires regarding telehealth usability and experience. Virtual gait speed tests were administered at baseline and 24 to 72 hours later to evaluate reliability. Self-report mobility measures were used to examine convergent and known-groups validity. Participants' health outcomes were tracked for a year to evaluate predictive validity. Sixty participants completed the baseline assessment and 52 completed the second assessment. Participants reported an overall positive experience with the test. Intraclass correlation coefficients for reliability ranged from 0.79 to 0.90. For convergent validity, correlations >0.30 were found predominantly for usual gait speed with self-report mobility measures. Both the usual- and fast-gait speed were able to discriminate between difficulty walking and gait aid use. Usual gait speed was able to predict specialist and family doctor visits and fast gait speed was able to predict rehabilitation specialist visits over 1 year. Our findings demonstrate support for the acceptability, reliability, and validity of virtually administered gait speed tests for community-dwelling older adults. Although future studies are needed to examine the validity of virtual gait speed tests in larger and more diverse samples to improve generalizability of results, clinicians and researchers can virtually administer 3-m gait speed tests with confidence that scores are trustworthy and reflect older adults' mobility. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]