4.4 Article

Association between muscle power impairment and WHODAS 2.0 in older adults with physical disability in Taiwan

Journal

DISABILITY AND REHABILITATION
Volume 37, Issue 8, Pages 712-720

Publisher

TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD
DOI: 10.3109/09638288.2014.940428

Keywords

Muscle power functions; older adults; physical disability; WHODAS 2.0

Categories

Funding

  1. Department of Health, Executive Yuan, Taiwan [DOH 99M4080, DOH102-TD-M-113-102002]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Purpose: To explore the association between muscle power impairment and each World Health Organization Disability Assessment Schedule second edition (WHODAS 2.0) domain score among subjects with physical disability. Methods: Subjects (>= 60 years) with physical disability related to neurological diseases, including 730 subjects with brain disease (BD) and 126 subjects with non-BD, were enrolled from a data bank of persons with disabilities from 1 July 2011 to 29 February 2012. Standardized WHODAS 2.0 scores ranging from 0 (least difficulty) to 100 (greatest difficulty) points were calculated for each domain. Results: More than 50% of subjects with physical disability had the greatest difficulty in household activities and mobility. Muscle power impairment (adjusted odds ratios range among domains, 2.75-376.42, p<0.001), age (1.38-4.81, p<0.05), and speech impairment (1.94-5.80, p<0.05) were associated with BD subjects experiencing the greatest difficulty in most WHODAS 2.0 domains. But a few associated factors were identified for the non-BD group in the study. Conclusions: Although the patterns of difficulty in most daily activities were similar between the BD and non-BD groups, factors associated with the difficulties differed between those two groups. Muscle power impairment, age and speech impairment were important factors associated with difficulties in subjects with BD-related physical disability.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available