Walker use, but not falls, is associated with lower physical functioning and health of residents in an assisted-living environment

Figures & data

Table 1 Subject characteristics

Group	n	Age (yr) (Mean ± SD)	Gender
Sample	40	86.8 ± 6.0	M = 14 F = 26
Fallers	23	84.1 ± 5.6	M = 10 F = 13
Nonfallers	17	88.8 ± 6.2	M = 4 F = 13
Walker users	21	86.0 ± 4.8	M = 9 F = 12
Nonusers	19	86.1 ± 7.2	M = 5 F = 14
NN	11	87.7 ± 4.4	M = 3 F = 8
NW	6	90.7 ± 8.8	M = 1 F = 5
FN	8	83.6 ± 4.4	M = 2 F = 6
FW	15	85.1 ± 6.2	M = 8 F = 6

Abbreviations: FN, faller–no walker; FW, faller–walker; NN, nonfaller–no walker; NW, nonfaller–walker.

Figure 1 Typical four-legged walker used by subjects in the present study.

Table 2 Constructs of the SF-36 Health Survey questionnaire (for item numbers see Appendix 1).

Area	Dimension	Number of questions	Item Numbers
Functional status	Physical functioning	10	3a–j
	Social functioning	2	6 & 10
	Role limitations (physical problems)	4	4a–d
	Role limitations (emotional problems)	3	5a–c
Well-being	Mental health	5	9b, c, d, f, h
	Vitality	4	9a, e, g, I
	Pain	2	7 & 8
Overall evaluation of health	General health perception	5	1 & 11a–d
	Health change	1	2

Table 3 Mean scores on individual constructs of the SF-36 and the SF-36 total score based on faller status and walker use

Fall (1)		PHYSFUNT	ROLEPHYT	ROLEEMOT	MENHEALT	PAINT	ENERGYT	GENHEALT	SF-36 total
0	Mean	67.35	37.50	93.75	76.24	78.47	61.25	67.65	664.36
	N	17	16	16	17	16	16	17	17
	Std. Deviation	24.375	18.257	18.130	16.277	15.957	22.472	17.421	159.679
1	Mean	55.22	27.72	73.91	68.35	66.18	56.74	66.09	598.29
	N	23	23	23	23	23	23	23	23
	Std. Deviation	28.702	19.928	36.177	14.518	25.619	18.806	19.185	143.982
Total	Mean	60.38	31.73	82.05	71.70	71.23	58.59	66.75	626.37
	N	40	39	39	40	39	39	40	40
	Std. Deviation	27.301	19.628	31.387	15.595	22.759	20.227	18.242	152.475
Aid (1)		PHYSFUNT	ROLEPHYT	ROLEEMOT	MENHEALT	PAINT	ENERGYT	GENHEALT	SF-36 total
0	Mean	80.53	40.79	85.96	72.84	77.78	62.37	73.95	702.06
	N	19	19	19	19	19	19	19	19
	Std. Deviation	14.424	14.932	33.913	19.713	22.222	20.437	15.686	127.978
1	Mean	42.14	23.13	78.33	70.67	65.00	55.00	60.24	557.89
	N	21	20	20	21	20	20	21	21
	Std. Deviation	23.053	19.981	29.170	11.051	22.009	19.868	18.267	142.225
Total	Mean	60.38	31.73	82.05	71.70	71.23	58.59	66.75	626.37
	N	40	39	39	40	39	39	40	40
	Std. Deviation	27.301	19.628	31.387	15.595	22.759	20.227	18.242	152.475

Abbreviations: ENERGYT, energy; GENHEALT, general health; MENHEALT, mental health; PAINT, pain; PHYSFUNT, physical functioning; ROLEPHYT, role limitations due to physical problems; ROLEEMOT, role limitations due to emotional problems.

Figure 2 Results of ANCOVA comparing walker users to nonusers on the physical functioning (PF), role limitations due to physical problems (RLPP), and general health (GH) constructs, as well as the total SF-36 score (TSF-36).

Note: *Significant difference between groups, p < 0.05.
Abbreviations: ANCOVA, analysis of covariance.

Table 4 Multiple comparisons using LSD test

Dependent variable	Group		Mean difference	Standard error	Significance
Physical functioning	NN	NW	30.68	10.00	0.004
	FN	FW	43.75	8.63	0.000
Role limitations due to physical functioning	NN	NW	10.91	9.68	0.268
	FN	FW	19.79	7.86	0.017
General health	NN	NW	11.82	8.87	0.191
	FN	FW	16.54	7.65	0.037
SF-36 total	NN	NW	144.25	70.43	0.048
	FN	FW	131.26	60.76	0.037

Abbreviations: FN, faller–no walker; FW, faller–walker; LSD, least significant difference; NN, nonfaller–no walker; NW, nonfaller–walker; SF, short-form.

Figure 3 Data for the four comparison groups on the physical functioning construct.

Figure 6 Data for the four comparison groups on the total SF-36 score.

Note: *Significant difference between NN and NW or FN and FW groups, p < 0.05.
Abbreviations: FN, faller–no walker; FW, faller–walker; NN, nonfaller–no walker; NW, nonfaller–walker.

Note: *Significant difference between NN and NW or FN and FW groups, p < 0.05.

Abbreviations: FN, faller–no walker; FW, faller–walker; NN, nonfaller–no walker; NW, nonfaller–walker.

Figure 6 Data for the four comparison groups on the total SF-36 score.

Note: *Significant difference between NN and NW or FN and FW groups, p < 0.05.
Abbreviations: FN, faller–no walker; FW, faller–walker; NN, nonfaller–no walker; NW, nonfaller–walker.

Figure 4 Data for the four comparison groups on the role limitations due to physical problems construct.

Note: *Significant difference between NN and NW or FN and FW groups, p < 0.05.
Abbreviations: FN, faller–no walker; FW, faller–walker; NN, nonfaller–no walker; NW, nonfaller–walker.

Figure 5 Data for the four comparison groups on the physical functioning construct.

Note: *Significant difference between NN and NW or FN and FW groups, p < 0.05.
Abbreviations: FN, faller–no walker; FW, faller–walker; NN, nonfaller–no walker; NW, nonfaller–walker