COMPARATIVE STUDY
JOURNAL ARTICLE
MULTICENTER STUDY
RESEARCH SUPPORT, N.I.H., EXTRAMURAL
RESEARCH SUPPORT, NON-U.S. GOV'T
Add like
Add dislike
Add to saved papers

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

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

We have located links that may give you full text access.
Can't access the paper?
Try logging in through your university/institutional subscription. For a smoother one-click institutional access experience, please use our mobile app.

For the best experience, use the Read mobile app

Mobile app image

Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university

For the best experience, use the Read mobile app

All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.

By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.

Your Privacy Choices Toggle icon

You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now

Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university

For the best experience, use the Read mobile app