4.7 Article

Investigation of factors influencing low physical activity levels in community-dwelling older adults with chronic pain: a cross-sectional study

期刊

SCIENTIFIC REPORTS
卷 13, 期 1, 页码 -

出版社

NATURE PORTFOLIO
DOI: 10.1038/s41598-023-41319-7

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study aims to investigate the predictors of low physical activity levels in individuals with chronic pain and determine the accuracy of an artificial neural network algorithm used for analysis. The results show that a history of falls is a predictor of low physical activity levels in community-dwelling older adults with chronic pain. The study emphasizes the importance of fall prevention in improving physical activity levels in this population.
Low levels of physical activity in individuals with chronic pain can lead to additional functional impairment and disability. This study aims to investigate the predictors of low physical activity levels in individuals with chronic pain, and to determine the accuracy of the artificial neural network used to analyze these predictors. Community-dwelling older adults with chronic pain (n = 103) were surveyed for their physical activity levels and classified into low, moderate, or high physical activity level groups. Chronic pain-related measurements, physical function assessment, and clinical history, which all influence physical activity, were also taken at the same time. Logistic regression analysis and analysis of multilayer perceptron, an artificial neural network algorithm, were performed. Both analyses revealed that history of falls was a predictor of low levels of physical activity in community-dwelling older adults. Multilayer perceptron analysis was shown to have excellent accuracy. Our results emphasize the importance of fall prevention in improving the physical activity levels of community-dwelling older adults with chronic pain. Future cross-sectional studies should compare multiple analysis methods to show results with improved accuracy.

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