Responsiveness of mobility, daily living, and instrumental activities of daily living outcome measures for geriatric rehabilitation.
OBJECTIVE
To assess and compare the ability of the Timed Up & Go (TUG) and subscales of the Functional Autonomy Measurement System (SMAF) to detect change in people undergoing geriatric rehabilitation in inpatient geriatric rehabilitation units (GRUs) and day hospitals.


METHODS
Longitudinal design with repeated measures obtained at admission and discharge from rehabilitation and at 2 follow-up interviews.


METHODS
Inpatient and outpatient hospital-based settings.


METHODS
Subjects (N=237, age 80+/-7 y) had data at admission and discharge from rehabilitation (changing time frame), and of these, 160 had data at 2 subsequent follow-ups (stable time frame).


METHODS
Not applicable.


METHODS
The TUG was used to estimate basic mobility, and subscales of the SMAF were used to estimate general mobility (SMAF-mobility), basic activities of daily living (SMAF-ADL), and instrumental activities of daily living (SMAF-IADL). Professionals' perception of change was used as a criterion.


RESULTS
The TUG generated large values for the standardized response mean (SRM) and Guyatt's responsiveness index in GRUs (.98 and 1.12) and day hospitals (.89 and 1.85). Professionals' perception of change in mobility was explained by a perceptible change in the TUG in day hospitals (15%) but not in GRUs. The SMAF-mobility, SMAF-ADL, and SMAF-IADL were associated with large values of SRM and Guyatt's responsiveness index in GRUs (.97-2.17) and with small to moderate values in day hospitals (.29-.54). Moderate to large portions in the professionals' perceptions of change for mobility (20%, 17%), basic ADLs (10% and 14%), and IADLs (23% and 19%) were associated with the respective change scores of the subscales of the SMAF in both GRUs and day hospitals.


CONCLUSIONS
Progress of older adults in the areas of mobility, basic ADLs, and IADLs can be captured using the TUG, SMAF-mobility, SMAF-ADL, and SMAF-IADL in both GRUs and day hospitals. The results support their use in settings of high- and low-intensity rehabilitation, thus suggesting their adequacy for use in these 2 settings.
Demers
Louise
L
School of Rehabilitation, Université de Montréal, Montreal, Quebec, Canada. louise.demers@umontreal.ca
Desrosiers
Johanne
J
Nikolova
Rossitza
R
Robichaud
Line
L
Bravo
Gina
G
D000203:Activities of Daily Living; D000368:Aged; D000369:Aged, 80 and over; D003631:Day Care, Medical; D005260:Female; D015577:Geriatric Assessment / Q000379:methods*; D006305:Health Status Indicators; D006760:Hospitalization; D006801:Humans; D008137:Longitudinal Studies; D008297:Male; D009043:Motor Activity / Q000502:physiology*; D017063:Outcome Assessment, Health Care / Q000379:methods*; D011237:Predictive Value of Tests; D012047:Rehabilitation Centers; D015203:Reproducibility of Results