ArticleAging clinical and experimental research2023
Advances in mobility aid use reporting: situational context and objective measurement improve understanding of daily aid use in older adults.
Article in Aging clinical and experimental research, 2023. 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, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundUnderstanding mobility aid use has implications for falls risk reduction and aid prescription. However, aid use in daily life is understudied and more complex than revealed by commonly used yes/no self-reporting.
aimsTo advance approaches for evaluating mobility aid use among older adults using a situational (context-driven) questionnaire and wearable sensors.
methodsData from two cross-sectional observational studies of older adults were used: (1) 190 participants (86 ± 5 years) completed tests of standing, sit-to-stand, walking, grip strength, and self-reported fear of falling and (2) 20 participants (90 ± 4 years) wore two body-worn and one aid-mounted sensors continuously for seven days to objectively quantify aid use during walking. Situational and traditional binary reporting stratified participants into aid dependency levels (0-4) and aid-user groups, respectively. Physical performance and fear of falling were compared between aid users, and dependency levels and sensor-derived walking behaviors were compared to reported aid use.
resultsPhysical performance and fear of falling differed between aid-user groups (P < 0.05). Sensor-derived outputs revealed differences in walking behaviors and aid use when categorized by dependency level and walking bout length (P < 0.05). Walking bout frequency (rho(18) = - 0.47, P = 0.038) and aid use time (rho(13) = .72, P = 0.002) were associated with dependency level. DISCUSSION: Comparisons of situational aid dependency revealed heterogeneity between aid users suggesting binary aid use reporting fails to identify individual differences in walking and aid use behaviors.
conclusionsEnhanced subjective aid use reporting and objective measurements of walking and aid use may improve aid prescription and inform intervention to support safe and effective mobility in older adults.
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.