COMPARATIVE STUDY
JOURNAL ARTICLE
MULTICENTER STUDY

Assessing mobility difficulties for cross-national comparisons: results from the World Health Organization Study on Global AGEing and Adult Health

Benjamin D Capistrant, M Maria Glymour, Lisa F Berkman
Journal of the American Geriatrics Society 2014, 62 (2): 329-35
24438515

OBJECTIVES: To assess the correspondence between self-reported and measured indicators of mobility disability in older adults in six low- and middle-income countries (LMICs).

DESIGN: Cross-sectional analysis of Study on Global AGEing and Adult Health (SAGE).

SETTING: Household surveys in China, India, Russia, South Africa, Ghana, and Mexico.

PARTICIPANTS: Community-dwelling SAGE respondents aged 65 and older (N = 12,215).

MEASUREMENTS: Objective mobility was assessed according to a 4-m timed walk at normal pace conducted in the respondent's home; slow walking speed was defined according to the Fried frailty criteria (lowest quintile of walking speed, adjusted for age and height). Self-reported mobility difficulty was assessed according to a question about ability to walk 1 km; this response was dichotomized into any versus no self-reported difficulty walking 1 km (reference no difficulty). The age- (5-year groups) and sex-specific probability of self-reporting difficulty walking 1 km was estimated in those with a measured slow walk using logistic regression.

RESULTS: Between 42% and 76% of people aged 65 and older reported any difficulty walking 1 km. Average walking speed was slowest in Russia (0.61 m/s) and fastest in China (0.88 m/s). The probabilities of reporting any difficulty walking 1 km in women aged 65 to 69, for example, with a slow walk varied (China = 0.35, India = 0.90, Russia = 0.68, South Africa = 0.81, Ghana = 0.91, Mexico = 0.73; test of country differences P < .001). There was significant variation at older ages, albeit smaller in magnitude. Patterns were similar for men.

CONCLUSION: Although correspondence between an objective and self-reported measure of mobility was generally high, correspondence differed significantly between LMICs. International comparisons of self-reported disability measures for clinical, prevention, and policy guidelines in LMICs should consider that self-reported data may not correspond to objective measures uniformly between countries.

Full Text Links

Find Full Text Links for this Article

Discussion

You are not logged in. Sign Up or Log In to join the discussion.

Related Papers

Remove bar
Read by QxMD icon Read
24438515
×

Save your favorite articles in one place with a free QxMD account.

×

Search Tips

Use Boolean operators: AND/OR

diabetic AND foot
diabetes OR diabetic

Exclude a word using the 'minus' sign

Virchow -triad

Use Parentheses

water AND (cup OR glass)

Add an asterisk (*) at end of a word to include word stems

Neuro* will search for Neurology, Neuroscientist, Neurological, and so on

Use quotes to search for an exact phrase

"primary prevention of cancer"
(heart or cardiac or cardio*) AND arrest -"American Heart Association"