Association between physiological falls risk and physical performance tests among community-dwelling older adults

Figures & data

Figure 1 Percentage of falls risk based on PPA category of falls risk.

Abbreviation: PPA, profile physiological assessment.

Table 1 Demographic data of participants

Variables	High falls risk	Low falls risk	P-value
N (%)	(18) 12.86	(122) 87.14
Age (mean, SD)	68.33±4.416	65.68±4.5289	0.016*
Sex (n) %
Male	(8) 5.72	(38) 27.14	0.910
Female	(10) 7.14	(84) 60.00
Race (n) %
Malay	(17) 12.14	(94) 67.14	Nil
Chinese	(1) 0.71	(25) 17.86
Indian	0	(3) 2.14
Living status (n) %
Alone	0	(21) 15.00	Nil
Not alone	(18) 12.86	(101) 72.14
Falls history (n) %
Yes	(9) 6.43	(39) 27.86	Nil
No	(9) 6.43	(70) 50.00
Do not know	0	(13) 9.28
TST (seconds)	17.84	7.14	0.003*
SBT (degrees)	2.40	1.87	0.007*
FRT (cm)	26.67	30.67	0.006*
DHGS (kg)	16.33	16.00	0.671
SPPB (score)	11.00	12.00	0.000**
GST (m)	5.44	5.20	0.294
TUG (seconds)	8.43	7.14	0.001*

Notes:

* Significant at P<0.05;

** significant at P<0.0001; TST, SBT, FRT, DHGS, SPPB, GST, and TUG are reported in median values, and Mann–Whitney U-test was used to evaluate the group differences as normality assumption was violated.

Abbreviations: SD, standard deviation; TST, ten-step test; SBT, static balance test; FRT, functional reach test; DHGS, dominant hand-grip strength; SPPB, short physical performance battery; GST, gait speed test; TUG, timed up and go.

Table 2 Spearman’s rho correlation of the variables

Variables	SPPB		TST		SBT		FRT		DHGS		GST		TUG		PPA
	r	P	r	P	r	P	r	P	r	P	r	P	r	P	r	P
SPPB			−0.37**	0.00	−0.03	0.69	0.45**	0.00	−0.06	0.48	−0.41**	0.00	−0.49**	0.00	−0.33**	0.00
TST					−0.01	0.87	−0.36**	0.00	−0.04	0.67	0.38**	0.00	0.67**	0.00	0.25*	0.00
SBT							0.01	0.88	0.26*	0.00	0.00	0.98	0.04	0.59	0.23*	0.08
FRT									0.01	0.91	−0.19	0.02	−0.35**	0.00	−0.23*	0.05
DHGS											−0.11	0.20	0.00	0.99	−0.04	0.67
GST													0.55**	0.00	0.09	0.30
TUG															0.27*	0.00
PPA

Notes:

* Significant at P<0.05;

** significant at P<0.001.

Abbreviations: SPPB, short physical performance battery; TST, ten-step test; SBT, static balance test; FRT, functional reach test; DHGS, dominant hand-grip strength; GST, gait speed test; TUG, timed up and go; PPA, physiological profile assessment.

Table 3 Physical performance tests as predictors of physiological falls risk

Physical tests and covariates	B (unstandardizedcoefficients)	Significance	Odds ratio	95% confidence interval for odds ratio
				Lower	Upper
Age	0.06	0.31	1.06	0.94	1.20
TST	0.02	0.86	1.02	0.85	1.21
SBT	0.75	0.01	2.12	1.26	3.57
FRT	−0.07	0.23	0.93	0.84	1.04
SPPB	0.02	0.97	1.02	0.46	2.25
TUG	0.32	0.14	1.38	0.89	2.12
Constant	−9.14	0.21	0.00

Note: Bolded data denotes the significant predictor of physiological falls risk.

Abbreviations: TST, ten-step test; SBT, static balance test; Exp, experiment; FRT, functional reach test; SPPB, short physical performance battery; TUG, Timed Up and Go.

Table 4 Coordinates of the curve

Positive if greater than or equal toa	Sensitivity	1 – specificity
1.01	1.00	0.90
2.18	0.65	0.37
2.20	0.58	0.37
3.03	0.29	0.11

Notes:

a The cutoff point 2.18. The optimum cut off point is indicated in bold type. Older adults who scored 2.18 and more on SBT are more likely to have high risk of falls.

Abbreviation: SBT, static balance test.

Table 5 Area under the ROC for static balance test measuring postural sways as a predictor for physiological falls risk

AUC	Standard errrora	Asymptotic significanceb	Asymptotic 95% confidence interval
			Lower bound	Upper bound
0.70	0.06	0.01	0.59	0.82

Notes:

a Under the nonparametric assumption.

b Null hypothesis: true area =0.5.

Abbreviations: ROC, receiver operating curve; AUC, area under curve.