PTOTOtherJournal of physical therapy science2016

Comparison of older adults' visual perceptual skills, cognitive function, and fall efficacy according to fall risk in the elderly.

HyeJin Lee, BoRa Park, YeongAe Yang

PMID 27942139

WHAT IT FOUND

Older adults classified as at risk for falls had lower visual perception, cognition, and fall efficacy scores than those not at risk.

Scores were correlated, but this cannot show that training these skills prevents falls.

Key findings

01Elders at risk for falls had lower mean MVPT-3 raw scores (26.5) than elders not at risk (34.8), and lower standard scores (55.0 vs 62.3).

02Elders at risk for falls had lower mean MMSE-KC total scores (17.2 vs 22.1) and lower mean FES-K scores (27.5 vs 39.6).

03MVPT-3 scores were significantly correlated with Berg Balance scores (r=0.349), one-legged stance with eyes open (r=0.624), MMSE-KC scores (r=0.442), MoCA-K scores (r=0.518), and FES-K scores (r=0.506).

STILL TO COME

How it was doneWhat they foundWhat it means for PTsWhat it means for OTs

Read the rest of this summary

You get three full summaries a month, free, and we do not ask for a card. Search, the TL;DRs and your library stay unlimited either way.

Already have one?

What it does not show

Participants were recruited from two senior centers in Busan, so results may not apply to older adults in other communities. The at-risk group had to be able to stand alone and walk more than 10 m without help, so more dependent elders were not represented. Even the not-at-risk group had low balance scores (Berg 42.9, one-legged stance 5.3 seconds open and 2.8 seconds closed), so the sample may have been generally at risk. The study measured fall-risk status and test scores during the study period; it did not report follow-up for falls, so it cannot show that visual perception, cognition, or fall efficacy caused fall risk. The supplied text does not report dropouts, missing data, or how assessors were blinded. The Discussion gives a different mean FES-K score for the at-risk group (25.57) than Table 3 (27.5), so exact reported values are inconsistent.

Declared interests

No funding or conflict-of-interest declaration is given in the supplied text. The study protocol was approved by the Science Research Council of Inje University.

The easy way to misread this

Do not conclude that improving visual perception, cognition, or fall efficacy will reduce falls. This was a cross-sectional comparison, not a treatment study, and fall risk was defined by balance and fall history, not by a clinical outcome over time.

Read it on PubMed →