4.5 Article

Slow gait speed is associated with executive function decline in older people with mild to moderate dementia: A one year longitudinal study

期刊

ARCHIVES OF GERONTOLOGY AND GERIATRICS
卷 73, 期 -, 页码 148-153

出版社

ELSEVIER IRELAND LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.archger.2017.07.023

关键词

Dementia; Cognitive impairment; Decline; Gait speed; Executive function; Aged

资金

  1. Australian National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) [455368]
  2. NHMRC Cognitive Decline Partnership Centre

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objectives: This study aimed to document change in neuropsychological, physical and functional performance over one year and to investigate the relationship between baseline gait speed and cognitive decline in this period in older people with dementia. Methods: One hundred and seventy-seven older people with dementia (Mini-Mental State Examination 11-23; Addenbrooke's Cognitive Examination-Revised< 83) residing in the community or low level care facility completed baseline neuropsychological, physical and functional assessments. Of these, 134 participants agreed to reassessment of the above measures one year later. Results: Overall, many neuropsychological, physical and functional performance measures declined significantly over the one year study period. Baseline gait speed was significantly associated with decline in verbal fluency (B (109) = 2.893, p = 0.046), specifically phonemic/letter fluency (B(109) = 2.812, p = 0.004) while controlling for age, education, dementia drug use and baseline cognitive performance. There was also a trend for an association between baseline gait speed and decline in clock drawing performance (B(107) = 0.601, p = 0.071). Conclusions: Older people with mild to moderate dementia demonstrate significant decline in neuropsychological, physical and functional performance over one year. Baseline gait speed is associated with decline in executive function over one year, suggesting shared pathways/pathology between gait and cognition.

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

4.5
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