Gait speed in laboratory settings (in-laboratory gait speed) is one of the important indicators associated with the decline in functional abilities in older adulthood. Recently, it has become possible to measure gait speed during daily living (daily gait speed) using accelerometers. However, the relationship between these two gait speed parameters is unclear. This study aimed to compare in-laboratory gait speed, measured by a sheet-type pressure sensor, and daily gait speed, measured by an accelerometer, in healthy community-dwelling older adults. Participants were aged ≥60 years, residing in Takahama city, Aichi, Japan. To calculate daily gait speed, participants were instructed to wear a tri-axial accelerometer on their waist. A total of 1965 participants were included in the final analysis. The results showed a weak association (
r
= 0.333,
p
< 0.001) between the two gait speed parameters. Furthermore, average daily gait speed was significantly lower than average in-laboratory gait speed. However, both gait speed parameters declined significantly with age. These results suggest that, in addition to in-laboratory gait speed, daily gait speed may be a helpful parameter for predicting decline in functional abilities.
Prefrailty is an intermediate stage between non-frailty and frailty. It is associated with an increased risk of progression to frailty, which makes it important to screen older adults for prefrailty at an early stage. This study verified whether daily gait speed and number of steps measured using a tri-axial accelerometer could be used to identify prefrailty. In total, 1692 Japanese community-dwelling older adults were divided into robust (n = 1032) and prefrail (n = 660) groups based on the Kihon Checklist, which is a self-administered questionnaire. Both daily gait speed and number of steps were measured for two weeks using tri-axial accelerometers. We also calculated the area under the ROC curve and the cut-off values for these parameters. Our results showed that the cut-off value for daily gait speed was 106.3 cm/s, while that for number of steps was 6342.2. In addition, we found that the combined assessment of both cut-off values was a more effective way to screen older adults with prefrailty status compared to either parameter alone. This is also considered an effective way to reduce national expenditures for daily care assistance.
Background Deteriorated skeletal muscle condition, including sarcopenia, is a risk factor for disability in older adults. Promoting physical activity is a useful treatment for sarcopenia. However, optimal intensity of physical activity according to sarcopenia characteristics is unclear. Methods This longitudinal cohort study enrolled 2149 community-dwelling older adults (women 55.7%, mean age: 75.5 ± 4.0 years). Five-year disability incidence defined by Japanese long-term care insurance certification and accelerometer-measured physical activities (light-intensity physical activity [LPA] and moderate-to-vigorous intensity physical activity [MVPA]), which were adjusted for potential confounders, was analysed using cox-proportional hazard model stratified by sarcopenia characteristics based on the diagnostic algorithm by the Asian working group for sarcopenia (robust, low physical function, low muscle mass, and sarcopenia). The sarcopenia group was defined as low muscle mass and low physical function (weakness and/or slowness). The low muscle mass and low physical function groups were each defined by these characteristics alone. Muscle mass was analysed via bioelectrical impedance analysis. Each intensity of physical activity times was divided by median values. Results The disability incidence rate was 15.4%, excluding those who could not be followed up.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.