Background: Maximal handgrip strength (HGS) could be an incomplete and unidimensional measure of muscle function. This pilot study sought to examine the relationships between maximal HGS, radial and ulnar digit grip strength, submaximal HGS force control, HGS fatigability, neuromuscular HGS steadiness, and HGS asymmetry in older adults. Methods: A digital handgrip dynamometer and accelerometer was used to collect several HGS measurements from 13 adults aged 70.9 ± 4.0 years: maximal strength, radial and ulnar digit grip strength, submaximal force control, fatigability, neuromuscular steadiness, and asymmetry. Pearson correlations determined the relationships between individual HGS measurements. A principal component analysis was used to derive a collection of new uncorrelated variables from the HGS measures we examined. Results: The individual HGS measurements were differentially correlated. Maximal strength (maximal HGS, radial digit strength, ulnar digits strength), contractile steadiness (maximal HGS steadiness, ulnar digit grip strength steadiness), and functional strength (submaximal HGS force control, HGS fatigability, HGS asymmetry, HGS fatigability steadiness) emerged as dimensions from the HGS measurements that we evaluated. Conclusion: Our findings suggest that these additional measures of muscle function may differ from maximal HGS alone. Continued research is warranted for improving how we assess muscle function with more modern technologies, including handgrip dynamometry and accelerometry.

Background: We sought to examine the associations of pulse pressure (PP) and mean arterial pressure (MAP) on physical function in older Americans. Methods: Our analytic sample included 10,478 adults aged ≥65 years from the 2006–2016 Health and Retirement Study. Handgrip strength, gait speed, and standing balance were collected using relatively standard protocols. PP and MAP were calculated from blood pressure measurements. Results: Older Americans with any abnormality in PP had 1.15 (95% confidence interval (CI): 1.05–1.25) greater odds for slowness and 1.14 (CI: 1.05–1.24) greater odds for poorer standing balance. Persons with any abnormality in MAP had 0.90 (CI: 0.82–0.98) decreased odds for weakness and 1.10 (CI: 1.01–1.20) greater odds for poorer standing balance. Those with low PP had 1.19 (CI: 1.03–1.36) greater odds for slow gait speed, while persons with low MAP had 1.50 (CI: 1.09–2.05) greater odds for weakness and 1.45 (CI: 1.03–2.04) greater odds for slowness. Older Americans with high PP had 1.13 (CI: 1.03–1.25) greater odds for slowness and 1.21 (CI: 1.10–1.32) greater odds for poorer balance, whereas those with high MAP had 0.87 (CI: 0.80–0.95) decreased odds for weakness. Conclusions: Cardiovascular dysfunction, as observed by PP and MAP, may help to explain some of our findings.

Background: Handgrip strength (HGS) is strongly recommended for use in clinical settings because it is a convenient assessment of muscle strength and a robust prognostic indicator of health. However, it may lack use in clinical settings, and may not be well understood by healthcare providers and patients. We sought to determine the healthcare provider and patient perceptions of HGS in an internal medicine resident clinic. Methods: Healthcare providers were presented with didactic sessions for HGS and engaged in routine follow-up meetings. HGS was measured on eligible older adult patients during an approximately 9-month phased study period. Both healthcare providers and patients were asked to complete a questionnaire with 10-point Likert scale response items regarding their experiences with HGS. Results were presented as descriptive. Results: Overall, patients had a positive perception of HGS, as they understood HGS instructions (score: 9.8 ± 0.7), their results (score: 9.5 ± 1.3), and found value in HGS for their health (score: 8.4 ± 2.3). However, healthcare providers were generally neutral about HGS, such that at study end HGS was viewed as moderately valuable for their practice (score: 6.0 ± 2.1) and patients (score: 6.0 ± 2.1). Conclusions: Overall, patients had a positive perception of HGS, but healthcare providers were neutral. Our findings should be used to guide HGS for possible implementation and quality management in appropriate healthcare settings.