4.6 Article

The Boston Rehabilitative Impairment Study of the Elderly: A Description of Methods

期刊

出版社

W B SAUNDERS CO-ELSEVIER INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.apmr.2012.08.217

关键词

Aged; Mobility limitation; Primary health care; Rehabilitation

资金

  1. National Institute on Aging [5 R01 AG032052-03]
  2. National Center for Research Resources [1 UL1 RR025758-01]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objectives: To describe the methods of a longitudinal cohort study among older adults with preclinical disability. The study aims to address the lack of evidence guiding mobility rehabilitation for older adults by identifying those impairments and impairment combinations that are most responsible for mobility decline and disability progression over 2 years of follow-up. Design: Longitudinal cohort study. Setting: Metropolitan-based health care system. Participants: Community-dwelling primary care patients aged >= 65 years (N=430), with self-reported modification of mobility tasks because of underlying health conditions. Interventions: Not applicable. Main Outcome Measures: Late Life Function and Disability Instrument (LLFDI) (primary outcome); Short Physical Performance Battery and 400-m walk test (secondary outcomes). Results: Among 7403 primary care patients identified as being potentially eligible for participation, 430 were enrolled. Participants have a mean age of 76.5 years, are 68% women, and have on average 4.2 chronic conditions. Mean LLFDI scores are 55.5 for Function and 68.9 and 52.3 for the Disability Limitation and Frequency domains, respectively. Conclusions: Completion of our study aims will inform development of primary care based rehabilitative strategies to prevent disability. Additionally, data generated in this investigation can also serve as a vital resource for ancillary studies addressing important questions in rehabilitative science relevant to geriatric care. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation 2013;94:347-55 (C) 2013 by the American Congress of Rehabilitation Medicine

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

4.6
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