4.2 Article

Correlations Between Gait Speed, 6-Minute Walk Distance, Physical Activity, and Self-Efficacy in Patients With Severe Chronic Lung Disease

期刊

RESPIRATORY CARE
卷 58, 期 12, 页码 2113-2119

出版社

DAEDALUS ENTERPRISES INC
DOI: 10.4187/respcare.02471

关键词

gait speed; 6-min walk test; exercise capacity; COPD; interstitial lung disease

资金

  1. National Institutes of Health [NIH NHLBI 1R01CA163293-01]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

BACKGROUND: Four-meter gait speed (4MGS) has been associated with functional capacity and overall mortality in elderly patients, and may easily be translated to daily practice. We evaluated the association of 4MGS with meaningful outcomes. METHODS: In 70 subjects we conducted the 4MGS, 6-min walk test (6MWT), objectively measured physical activity, and assessed dyspnea, quality of life, and self-efficacy for walking and routine physical activity. 4MGS was measured in 3 separate time epochs during the 6MWT, to explore 4MGS variability. RESULTS: Diagnoses included COPD (51.4%), interstitial lung disease (38.6%), and other pulmonary conditions (10%). The mean +/- SD values were: 4MGS 0.85 +/- 0.21 m/s, 6-min walk distance (6MWD) 305 +/- 115 m, and physical activity level 1.28 +/- 0.17, which is consistent with severe physical inactivity. The gait speeds within the time epochs 1-2, 3-4, and 5-6 min during the 6MWT were not significantly different: 1.01 +/- 0.29 m/s, 0.98 +/- 0.31 m/s, and 1.00 +/- 0.31 m/s, respectively. 4MGS had a significant correlation with 6MWD (r = 0.70, P < .001). 6MWD was the dominant variable for predicting 4MGS. Other significant predictors of 4MGS included dispnea, self-efficacy, quality of life, and objectively measured physical activity. CONCLUSIONS: 4MGS is significantly and independently associated with 6MWD, and may serve as a reasonable simple surrogate for 6MWD in subjects with chronic lung disease. Gait speed was remarkably stable throughout the 6MWT, which supports the validity of an abbreviated walk test such as 4MGS. (C) 2013 Daedalus Enterprises

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.2
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据