TY - JOUR
T1 - Physical Functioning in Patients with a Recent Fracture
T2 - The “Can Do, Do Do” Framework Applied to Explore Physical Capacity, Physical Activity and Fall Risk Factors
AU - Schene, M. R.
AU - Meijer, K.
AU - Cheung, D.
AU - Willems, H. C.
AU - Driessen, J. H. M.
AU - Vranken, L.
AU - van den Bergh, J. P.
AU - Wyers, C. E.
N1 - Publisher Copyright: © 2023, The Author(s).
PY - 2023/8/1
Y1 - 2023/8/1
N2 - Physical capacity (PC) and physical activity (PA) are associated physical performance measures, and combined, PC and PA are used to categorize physical performance in the “can do, do do” framework. We aimed to explore physical performance of patients attending the fracture liaison service (FLS). In this cross-sectional study, PC was measured by 6-min-walking-test (can’t do/can do) and PA by accelerometer (don’t do/do do). Following quadrants were defined based on predefined cut-off scores for poor performance: (1) “can’t do, don’t do”; (2) “can do, don’t do”; (3) “can’t do, do do”; (4) “can do, do do”. Odds ratios (OR) were calculated and fall and fracture risk factors were assessed between quadrants. Physical performance of 400 fracture patients was assessed (mean age 64; female 70.8%). Patients performed as follows: 8.3% “can’t do, don’t do”; 3.0% “can do, don’t do”; 19.3% “can’t do, do do”; 69.5% “can do, do do”. For the “can’t do” group the OR for low PA was 9.76 (95% CI: 4.82–19.80). Both the “can’t do, don’t do” and “can’t do, do do” group differed significantly compared to the “can do, do do” group on several fall and fracture risk factors and had lower physical performance. The “can do, do do” framework is able to identify fracture patients with an impaired physical performance. Of all FLS patients 20% “can’t do, but “do do” while having a high prevalence of fall risk factors compared to persons that “can do, do do”, which may indicate this group is prone to fall.
AB - Physical capacity (PC) and physical activity (PA) are associated physical performance measures, and combined, PC and PA are used to categorize physical performance in the “can do, do do” framework. We aimed to explore physical performance of patients attending the fracture liaison service (FLS). In this cross-sectional study, PC was measured by 6-min-walking-test (can’t do/can do) and PA by accelerometer (don’t do/do do). Following quadrants were defined based on predefined cut-off scores for poor performance: (1) “can’t do, don’t do”; (2) “can do, don’t do”; (3) “can’t do, do do”; (4) “can do, do do”. Odds ratios (OR) were calculated and fall and fracture risk factors were assessed between quadrants. Physical performance of 400 fracture patients was assessed (mean age 64; female 70.8%). Patients performed as follows: 8.3% “can’t do, don’t do”; 3.0% “can do, don’t do”; 19.3% “can’t do, do do”; 69.5% “can do, do do”. For the “can’t do” group the OR for low PA was 9.76 (95% CI: 4.82–19.80). Both the “can’t do, don’t do” and “can’t do, do do” group differed significantly compared to the “can do, do do” group on several fall and fracture risk factors and had lower physical performance. The “can do, do do” framework is able to identify fracture patients with an impaired physical performance. Of all FLS patients 20% “can’t do, but “do do” while having a high prevalence of fall risk factors compared to persons that “can do, do do”, which may indicate this group is prone to fall.
KW - Accelerometer5
KW - Falls4
KW - Fracture liaison service1
KW - Physical activity2
KW - Physical capacity3
UR - https://www.scopus.com/inward/record.uri?partnerID=HzOxMe3b&scp=85163287325&origin=inward
UR - https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37367955
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85163287325&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - https://doi.org/10.1007/s00223-023-01090-3
DO - https://doi.org/10.1007/s00223-023-01090-3
M3 - Article
C2 - 37367955
SN - 0171-967X
VL - 113
SP - 195
EP - 206
JO - Calcified tissue international
JF - Calcified tissue international
IS - 2
ER -