Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Advances in mobility aid use reporting: situational context and objective measurement improve understanding of daily aid use in older adults

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Aging Clinical and Experimental Research Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Background

Understanding mobility aid use has implications for falls risk reduction and aid prescription. However, aid use in daily life is understudied and more complex than revealed by commonly used yes/no self-reporting.

Aims

To advance approaches for evaluating mobility aid use among older adults using a situational (context-driven) questionnaire and wearable sensors.

Methods

Data from two cross-sectional observational studies of older adults were used: (1) 190 participants (86 ± 5 years) completed tests of standing, sit-to-stand, walking, grip strength, and self-reported fear of falling and (2) 20 participants (90 ± 4 years) wore two body-worn and one aid-mounted sensors continuously for seven days to objectively quantify aid use during walking. Situational and traditional binary reporting stratified participants into aid dependency levels (0–4) and aid-user groups, respectively. Physical performance and fear of falling were compared between aid users, and dependency levels and sensor-derived walking behaviors were compared to reported aid use.

Results

Physical performance and fear of falling differed between aid-user groups (P < 0.05). Sensor-derived outputs revealed differences in walking behaviors and aid use when categorized by dependency level and walking bout length (P < 0.05). Walking bout frequency (rho(18) = − 0.47, P = 0.038) and aid use time (rho(13) = .72, P = 0.002) were associated with dependency level.

Discussion

Comparisons of situational aid dependency revealed heterogeneity between aid users suggesting binary aid use reporting fails to identify individual differences in walking and aid use behaviors.

Conclusions

Enhanced subjective aid use reporting and objective measurements of walking and aid use may improve aid prescription and inform intervention to support safe and effective mobility in older adults.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

Data availability

The datasets generated during and/or analyzed during the current study are not publicly available but may be available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

References

  1. Balash Y, Hadar-Frumer M, Herman T et al (2007) The effects of reducing fear of falling on locomotion in older adults with a higher level gait disorder. J Neural Transm 114:1309–1314. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00702-007-0771-z

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Charette C, Best KL, Smith EM et al (2018) Walking aid use in Canada: Prevalence and demographic characteristics among community-dwelling users. Am Phys Therapy Asso 98:571–577. https://doi.org/10.1093/ptj/pzy038

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Miyasike-daSilva V, Tung JY, Zabukovec JR et al (2013) Use of mobility aids reduces attentional demand in challenging walking conditions. Gait Posture 37:287–289. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gaitpost.2012.06.026

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Komisar V, Shishov N, Yang Y et al (2021) Effect of holding objects on the occurrence of head impact in falls by older adults: evidence from real-life falls in long-term care. J Gerontolo - Series A Bio Sci Med Sci 76:1463–1470. https://doi.org/10.1093/gerona/glaa168

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Deandrea S, Lucenteforte E, Bravi F et al (2010) Risk factors for falls in community-dwelling older people: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Epidemiology 21:658–668. https://doi.org/10.1097/EDE.0b013e3181e89905

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Bateni H, Maki BE (2005) Assistive devices for balance and mobility: Benefits, demands, and adverse consequences. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 86:134–145. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apmr.2004.04.023

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Thies SB, Bates A, Costamagna E et al (2020) Are older people putting themselves at risk when using their walking frames? BMC Geriatr 20:1–11. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12877-020-1450-2

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Omana HA, Madou E, Divine A, et al (2021) The effect of first-time 4-wheeled walker use on the gait of younger and older adults PM and R: The Journal of Injury Function and Rehabilitation https://doi.org/10.1002/pmrj.12700

  9. Omana H, Madou E, Divine A et al (2021) The differential effect of first-time single-point cane use between healthy young and older adults. PMR 13:1399–1409. https://doi.org/10.1002/pmrj.12559

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Watson SC, Chipchase LS, Mackintosh SF (2004) Gait aid use by ambulatory older people in a residential setting: a descriptive exploration. Inter J Therapy Rehabilitation. https://doi.org/10.12968/ijtr.2004.11.1.13403

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Coulter EH, Dall PM, Rochester L et al (2011) Development and validation of a physical activity monitor for use on a wheelchair. Spinal Cord 49:445–450. https://doi.org/10.1038/sc.2010.126

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Stevenson TJ, Connelly DM, Murray JM et al (2010) Threshold Berg Balance Scale scores for gait-aid use in elderly subjects: a secondary analysis. Physiother Can 62:133–140. https://doi.org/10.3138/physio.62.2.133

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  13. Thomson S, Badiuk B, Parokaran Varghese J et al (2022) Standing, transition, and walking ability in older adults: The case for independently evaluating different domains of mobility function. Gerontology 68:1–12. https://doi.org/10.1159/000521002

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. West B, Bhat G, Stevens J et al (2015) Assistive device use and mobility-related factors among adults aged 65 years. J Safety Res 55:147–150. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsr.2015.08.010

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  15. Peterson KF, Adams-Price C (2022) Fear of dependency and life-space mobility as predictors of attitudes toward assistive devices in older adults. Int J Aging Hum Dev 94:273–289. https://doi.org/10.1177/00914150211027599

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Cheng TJ, Kenney L, Amor JD et al (2016) Characterisation of rollator use using inertial sensors. Healthcare Tech Lett 3:303–309. https://doi.org/10.1049/htl.2016.0061

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Tung JY, Chee JN, Zabjek KF et al (2015) Combining ambulatory and laboratory assessment of rollator use for balance and mobility in neurologic rehabilitation in-patients. Disabil Rehabil Assist Technol 10:407–414. https://doi.org/10.3109/17483107.2014.908243

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Costamagna E, Thies SB, Kenney LPJ et al (2019) Objective measures of rollator user stability and device loading during different walking scenarios. PLoS ONE 14:1–13. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0210960

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Sun M, Amor J, James CJ et al (2019) Methods to characterize the real-world use of rollators using inertial sensors-a feasibility study. IEEE Access 7:71387–71397. https://doi.org/10.1109/ACCESS.2019.2919286

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Sonenblum SE, Sprigle S, Lopez RA (2012) Manual wheelchair use: Bouts of mobility in everyday life. Rehabil Res Pract 2012:1–7. https://doi.org/10.1155/2012/753165

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Schwenk M, Schmidt M, Pfisterer M et al (2011) Rollator use adversely impacts on assessment of gait and mobility during geriatric rehabilitation. J Rehabil Med 43:424–429. https://doi.org/10.2340/16501977-0791

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Chee JN, Gage WH, McIlroy WE et al (2013) Foot placement patterns of female rollator users with multiple sclerosis in the community. Disabil Rehabil 35:27–35. https://doi.org/10.3109/09638288.2012.687028

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Sprint G, Cook DJ, Weeks DL, (2016) Quantitative assessment of lower limb and cane movement with wearable inertial sensors. 3rd IEEE EMBS International Conference on Biomedical and Health Informatics, BHI 2016 https://doi.org/10.1109/BHI.2016.7455923

  24. McIlroy WE, Maki BE (1997) Preferred placement of the feet during quiet stance: development of a standardized foot placement for balance testing. Clin Biomech 12:66–70. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0268-0033(96)00040-X

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. Maki BE, Holliday PJ (1994) A prospective study of postural balance and risk of falling in an ambulatory and independent elderly population. J Gerontol 49:M72-84

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Brauer SG, Burns YR, Galley P (2000) A prospective study of laboratory and clinical measures of postural stability to predict community-dwelling fallers. J Gerontol - Series A Bio Sci Med Sci 55:469–476. https://doi.org/10.1093/gerona/55.8.M469

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Audiffren J, Bargiotas I, Vayatis N et al (2016) A non linear scoring approach for evaluating balance: classification of elderly as fallers and non-fallers. PLoS ONE 11:1–12. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0167456

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  28. Howcroft J, Lemaire ED, Kofman J et al (2017) Elderly fall risk prediction using static posturography. PLoS ONE 12:1–13. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0172398

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  29. Cesari M, Nicklas BJ, Tylavsky FA et al (2005) Prognostic value of usual gait speed in well-functioning older people. J Am Geriatric Society 53:1675–1680. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1532-5415.2005.53501.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Goldberg A, Schepens S (2011) Measurement error and minimum detectable change in 4-meter gait speed in older adults. Aging Clin Exp Res 23:406–412. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03325236

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Mehmet H, Robinson SR, Yang AWH (2020) Assessment of gait speed in older adults. J Geriatric Phys Therapy 43:42–52. https://doi.org/10.1519/JPT.0000000000000224

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Lindemann U, Najafi B, Zijlstra W et al (2008) Distance to achieve steady state walking speed in frail elderly persons. Gait Posture 27:91–96. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gaitpost.2007.02.005

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Fallahtafti F, Boron JB, Venema DM et al (2021) Task specificity impacts dual-task interference in older adults. Aging Clin Exp Res 33:581–587. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40520-020-01575-3

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Montero-Odasso M, Muir SW, Speechley M (2012) Dual-task complexity affects gait in people with mild cognitive impairment: The interplay between gait variability, dual tasking, and risk of falls. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 93:293–299. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apmr.2011.08.026

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Bohannon RW (2006) Reference values for the five-repetition sit-to-stand test: a descriptive meta-analysis of data from elders. Percept Mot Skills 103:215–222. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2010.1923

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Zhang F, Ferrucci L, Culham E et al (2013) Performance on five times sit-to-stand task as a predictor of subsequent falls and disability in older persons. J Aging Health 25:478–492. https://doi.org/10.1177/0898264313475813

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. MacKay S, Ebert P, Harbidge C et al (2021) Fear of falling in older adults: a scoping review of recent literature. Canadian Geriatrics J 24:379–394. https://doi.org/10.5770/CGJ.24.521

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Barry G, Galna B, Lord S et al (2015) Defining ambulatory bouts in free-living activity: Impact of brief stationary periods on bout metrics. Gait Posture 42:594–597. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gaitpost.2015.07.062

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Orendurff MS, Schoen JA, Bernatz GC et al (2008) How humans walk: Bout duration, steps per bout, and rest duration. J Rehabil Res Dev 45:1077–1090. https://doi.org/10.1682/JRRD.2007.11.0197

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Faul F, Erdfelder E, Lang AG et al (2007) G*Power 3: A flexible statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences. Behav Res Methods 39:175–191. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03193146

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Godkin FE, Turner E, Demnati Y et al (2021) Feasibility of a continuous, multi-sensor remote health monitoring approach in persons living with neurodegenerative disease. J Neurol. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00415-021-10831-z

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  42. Razjouyan J, Grewal GS, Rishel C et al (2017) Activity monitoring and heart rate variability as indicators of fall risk: Proof-of-concept for application of wearable sensors in the acute care setting. J Gerontol Nurs 43:53–62. https://doi.org/10.3928/00989134-20170223-01

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. De Lima ALS, Hahn T, Evers LJW et al (2017) Feasibility of large-scale deployment of multiple wearable sensors in Parkinson’s disease. PLoS ONE 12:1–15. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0189161

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  44. Vert A, Weber KS, Thai V et al (2022) Detecting accelerometer non-wear periods using change in acceleration combined with rate-of-change in temperature. BMC Med Res Methodol 22:1–12. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12874-022-01633-6

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Boissy P, Blamoutier M, Brière S et al (2018) Quantification of free-living community mobility in healthy older adults using wearable sensors. Front Public Health 6:1–13. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpubh.2018.00216

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank study participants and acknowledge Schlegel Villages together with the Schlegel-UW Research Institute for Aging for their support of this project as well as access to clinical data.

Funding

This work was supported by a grant to W. McIlroy from the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council (NSERC) Canada (# 1145753) and with the support of the Ontario Brain Institute, an independent non-profit corporation, funded partially by the Ontario government. The opinions, results, and conclusions are those of the authors and no endorsement by the Ontario Brain Institute is intended or should be inferred.

Author information

Author notes

  1. Sherri Thomson and Benjamin F. Cornish represent co-lead authorship.

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Kinesiology and Health Sciences, University of Waterloo, 200 University Ave W, Waterloo, ON, N2L 3G1, Canada

    Sherri Thomson, Benjamin F. Cornish, Anthony Pun, William E. McIlroy & Karen Van Ooteghem

Authors
  1. Sherri Thomson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Benjamin F. Cornish
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Anthony Pun
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. William E. McIlroy
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Karen Van Ooteghem
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

All authors contributed to the study conception and design. Material preparation, data collection, and analysis were performed by ST, BFC, AP. The first draft of the manuscript was written by ST and BFC and all authors commented on previous versions of the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Sherri Thomson.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

There were no competing of interests.

Ethical approval

This study was performed in line with the principles of the Declaration of Helsinki. Approvals were granted by the University of Waterloo Research Ethics Board (#30224 and #31943).

Consent for publication

All participants provided informed consent prior to participation in the study. Patients signed informed consent regarding publishing their data. No photographs were obtained in this study.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Thomson, S., Cornish, B.F., Pun, A. et al. Advances in mobility aid use reporting: situational context and objective measurement improve understanding of daily aid use in older adults. Aging Clin Exp Res 35, 2543–2553 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40520-023-02533-5

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40520-023-02533-5

Keywords

Search

Navigation