4.7 Article

Muscle Strength and Balance as Mediators in the Association between Physical Activity and Health-Related Quality of Life in Community-Dwelling Older Adults

期刊

JOURNAL OF CLINICAL MEDICINE
卷 11, 期 16, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/jcm11164857

关键词

ageing; quality of life; physical activity; lower limb strength; body balance; older adults

资金

  1. Swiss National Centre of Competence in Research LIVES-Overcoming vulnerability: life course perspectives - Swiss National Science Foundation [51NF40-185901]
  2. Swiss National Science Foundation [10001C_189407]
  3. LARSyS-Portuguese national funding agency for science, research and technology (FCT) pluriannual funding 2020-2023 [UIDB/50009/2020]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study found that lower extremity muscle strength and body balance partially mediated the relationship between physical activity and health-related quality of life in older adults population.
Lower extremity muscle strength (LEMS) and body balance (BB) are essential for older adults to maintain an upright posture and autonomously perform their basic activities of daily living. This study aimed to examine whether LEMS and BB mediate the relationship between physical activity (PA) and health-related quality of life (HRQoL) in a large sample of community-dwelling older adults. This is a cross-sectional study carried out with 802 individuals, 401 males and 401 females (69.8 +/- 5.6 years), residents of the Autonomous Region of Madeira, Portugal. PA and HRQoL were assessed by the Baecke Questionnaire and e SF-36, respectively. LEMS was assessed by the Senior Fitness Test and BB by the Fullerton Advance Balance (FAB). The serial mediation pathway model pointed out that LEMS and BB partially mediated the association between PA and HRQoL in approximately 39.6% and 47%, respectively. The total variance in HRQoL explained by the entire model was 98%. Our findings may indicate the role that LEMS and BB play in the relationship between PA and HRQoL in the older population.

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

4.7
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