One of the most widely conserved hallmarks of aging is a decline in functional capabilities. Mobility loss is particularly burdensome due to its association with negative health outcomes, loss of independence and disability, and the heavy impact on quality of life. Recently, a new condition, physical frailty and sarcopenia, has been proposed to define a critical stage in the disabling cascade. Physical frailty and sarcopenia are characterized by weakness, slowness, and reduced muscle mass, yet with preserved ability to move independently. One of the strategies that have shown some benefits in combatting mobility loss and its consequences for older adults is physical activity. Here, we describe the opportunities and challenges for the development of physical activity interventions in people with physical frailty and sarcopenia. The aim of this article is to review age-related physio(patho)logical changes that impact mobility in old age and to provide recommendations and procedures in accordance with the available literature.
13 June 2018 in The Journal of nutrition, health and aging
Objective To assess the association between muscle parameters (mass, strength, physical performance) and activities of daily living (ADL), quality of life (QoL), and health care costs. Design Cross-sectional Maastricht Sarcopenia Study (MaSS). Setting Community-dwelling, assisted-living, residential living facility. Participants 227 adults aged 65 and older. Measurements Muscle mass, hand grip strength and physical performance were assessed by bio-electrical impedance, JAMAR dynamometer and the Short Physical Performance Battery, respectively. Health outcomes were measured by the Groningen Activity Restriction Scale (disability in ADL) and the EQ-5D-5L (QoL). Health care costs were calculated based on health care use in the past three months. Results Muscle strength and physical performance showed a strong correlation with ADL, QoL, and health care costs (P<.01); for muscle mass no significant correlations were observed. Regression analyses showed that higher gait speed (OR 0.06, 95%CI 0.01-0.55) was associated with a lower probability of ADL disability. Furthermore, slower chair stand (OR 1.23, 95%CI 1.08-1.42), and more comorbidities (OR 1.58, 95%CI 1.23-2.02) were explanatory factors for higher ADL disability. Explanatory factors for QoL and costs were: more disability in ADL (OR 1.26, 95%CI 1.12-1.41 for QoL; B = 0.09, P<.01 for costs) and more comorbidities (OR 1.44, 95%CI 1.14-1.82 for QoL; B = 0.35, P<.01 for costs). Conclusion Lower gait speed and chair stand were potential drivers of disability in ADL. Disability in ADL and comorbidities were associated with QoL and health care costs in community-dwelling older adults. Improving physical performance may be a valuable target for future intervention and research to impact health burden and costs.
Purpose: In response to the growing recognition of geriatric rehabilitation and to support healthcare providers which need strategies to support older people with frailty who have experienced functional decline, we developed a consensus statement about core principles and future priorities for geriatric rehabilitation. Methods: We used a three-stage approach to establish consensus—preparation, consensus and review. Results: The consensus statement is grouped under 11 headings from (1) “Definition of GR” to (11) “Effective strategies to develop GR in Europe”, which define geriatric rehabilitation in a way that is compatible with existing service models across Europe. Additionally future goals around research and education are highlighted. Conclusion: The definitions of the consensus statement can provide a starting point for those wishing to further develop geriatric rehabilitation in their jurisdiction and help to develop strategic alliances with other specialties, serving as a basis for a pan-European approach to geriatric rehabilitation.
Although rehabilitation for older patients has the potential to improve function and prevent admission to nursing homes, returning home after discharge is not possible for all patients. Better understanding of patient factors related to discharge home may lead to more realistic rehabilitation goals, more targeted rehabilitation interventions and better preparation of both patient and informal caregiver for discharge. Various studies provided insight into factors related to home discharge after stroke rehabilitation, but we still lack insight into factors related to home discharge in non-stroke patients. Therefore, the aim of this review is to provide an overview of factors influencing home discharge in older non-stroke patients admitted to an inpatient rehabilitation unit. A systematic literature search was executed in the databases PubMed, EMBASE, CINAHL and Web of Science to retrieve articles published between January 2000 and October 2015. The search focused on factors related to home discharge after rehabilitation for older patients. Studies were included if home discharge after rehabilitation was assessed as an outcome measure and if the non-stroke population was, on average, 65 years or older and admitted to an inpatient rehabilitation unit. Eighteen studies were included. The methodological quality was moderate to good in 15 studies. The factors significantly associated with home discharge are younger age, non-white ethnicity, being married, better functional and cognitive status, and the absence of depression. Because various factors are significantly associated with home discharge of older non-stroke patients after rehabilitation, we recommend assessing these factors at admission to the rehabilitation unit. Further research into the factors that lack sufficient evidence concerning their association with home discharge is recommended.
1 April 2019 in Journal of the American Medical Directors Association