4.5 Article

Can stability really predict an impending slip-related fall among older adults?

Journal

JOURNAL OF BIOMECHANICS
Volume 47, Issue 16, Pages 3876-3881

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.jbiomech.2014.10.006

Keywords

Fall prevention; Fall risk screening; Variability

Funding

  1. NIH, U.S.A [R 01-AG16727, AG29616]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The primary purpose of this study was to systematically evaluate and compare the predictive power of falls for a battery of stability indices, obtained during normal walking among community-dwelling older adults. One hundred and eighty seven community-dwelling older adults participated in the study. After walking regularly for 20 strides on a walkway, participants were subjected to an unannounced slip during gait under the protection of a safety harness. Full body kinematics and kinetics were monitored during walking using a motion capture system synchronized with force plates. Stability variables, including feasible-stability-region measurement, margin of stability, the maximum Floquet multiplier, the Lyapunov exponents (short- and long-term), and the variability of gait parameters (including the step length, step width, and step time), were calculated for each subject. Sensitivity of predicting slip outcome (fall vs. recovery) was examined for each stability variable using logistic regression. Results showed that the feasible-stability-region measurement predicted fall incidence among these subjects with the highest sensitivity (68.4%). Except for the step width (with an sensitivity of 60.2%), no other stability variables could differentiate falters from those who did not fall for the sample included in this study. The findings from the present study could provide guidance to identify individuals at increased risk of falling using the feasible-stability-region measurement or variability of the step width. (C) 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available