Gait speed according to cognitive status in older adults: a cross-sectional study in a resource-limited country

Abstract

Objective

We aimed to investigate the association between gait speed and cognitive status in outpatient older adults from a resource-limited setting in Peru.

Methods

We performed a cross-sectional study including older adults aged ≥60 years attending a geriatrics outpatient clinic between July 2017 and February 2020. Gait speed was measured over a 10-meters distance without considering the first and last meter traveled. Cognitive status was assessed through the Short Portable Mental Status Questionnaire (SPMSQ) and the Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE). We used a multivariate binomial logistic regression to conduct both an epidemiological and fully adjusted models.

Results

We included 519 older adults (mean age: 75 years; IQR = 10), of whom 95 (18.3%) and 151 (31.5%) were cognitively impaired according to the SPMSQ and MMSE, respectively. Gait speed was slower among patients with poorer cognitive status as assessed by both tools (p < 0.001). Malnutrition (PR: 1.74; CI: 1.45–2.08) and functional dependency (PR: 4.35; CI: 2.68–7.08) were associated with a greater prevalence of cognitive impairment according to the SPMSQ, whereas a faster gait speed (PR: 0.27, CI: 0.14–0.52) and longer years of education (PR: 0.83, CI: 0.77–0.88) were associated with a less prevalence.

Conclusions

Slower gait speed was associated with poorer cognitive status in outpatient older adults. Gait speed may be a complementary tool in the cognitive assessment of older adults from resource-limited settings.

Keywords:

• Gait speed
• cognition
• older adult
• resource-limited setting
• Geriatric Assessment

Authors’ contributions

RRPSM: Conceptualization, Methodology, Investigation, EJA: Data curation, Formal analysis, Writing—Review & Editing, CLVC: Investigation, Writing—Original Draft, EGA: Conceptualization, Methodology, Investigation, PMC: Methodology, Investigation, PRG: Methodology, Formal analysis, Writing—Review & Editing, TT: Conceptualization, Methodology, Investigation, Writing—Review & Editing, Supervision.

Disclosure statement

The authors report there are no competing interests to declare.

Data availability statement

Data available on request due to privacy/ethical restrictions

Additional information

Funding

The author(s) reported there is no funding associated with the work featured in this article.