Observational studyPhysical therapy2021
Does Falls Efficacy Influence the Relationship Between Forward and Backward Walking Speed After Stroke?
Observational study in Physical therapy, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveForward walking speed (FWS) is known to be an important predictor of mobility, falls, and falls-related efficacy poststroke. However, backward walking speed (BWS) is emerging as an assessment tool to reveal mobility deficits in people poststroke that may not be apparent with FWS alone. Since backward walking is more challenging than forward walking, falls efficacy may play a role in the relationship between one's preferred FWS and BWS. We tested the hypothesis that people with lower falls efficacy would have a stronger positive relationship between FWS and BWS than those with higher falls efficacy.
methodsForty-five individuals (12.9 ± 5.6 months poststroke) participated in this observational study. We assessed FWS with the 10-meter walk test and BWS with the 3-meter backward walk test. The modified Falls-Efficacy Scale (mFES) quantified falls efficacy. A moderated regression analysis examined the hypothesis.
resultsFWS was positively associated with BWS (R2 = 0.26). The addition of the interaction term FWS × mFES explained 7.6% additional variance in BWS. As hypothesized, analysis of the interaction revealed that people with lower falls efficacy (mFES ≤ 6.6) had a significantly positive relationship between their preferred FWS and BWS, whereas people with higher falls efficacy (mFES > 6.6) had no relationship between their walking speed in the 2 directions.
conclusionsFWS is positively related to BWS poststroke, but this relationship is influenced by one's perceived falls efficacy. Our results suggest that BWS can be predicted from FWS in people with lower falls efficacy, but as falls efficacy increases, BWS becomes a separate and unassociated construct from FWS. IMPACT: This study provides unique evidence that the degree of falls efficacy significantly influences the relationship between FWS and BWS poststroke. Physical therapists should examine both FWS and BWS in people with higher falls efficacy, but further investigation is warranted for those with lower falls efficacy.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.