Scholarlink

Background/Objectives <p>Mobility decline is a strong predictor of falls, fractures, and disability in older adults and is associated with sarcopenia, kinesiophobia, reduced physical activity, and poorer quality of life. Early identification is essential to mitigate deterioration. Yet, most clinical assessments emphasise performance outcomes (e.g., time, repetitions) and often overlook early qualitative signs of mobility deterioration. Process-oriented assessments evaluating movement quality may offer greater sensitivity but are seldom used given time, resource, and training constraints. Digital technologies could overcome barriers, but practical evidence-based tools remain limited. This review aimed to identify process-oriented behavioural criteria for qualitatively assessing functional mobility in older adults, establishing a foundation for digital mobility assessments.</p> Methods <p>Following Joanna Briggs Institute and PRISMA-ScR guidelines, six databases (MEDLINE Complete, APA PsycInfo, CINAHL, Sport Discus, Embase, Web of Science) were searched from inception to September 2025. Six reviewers independently screened studies and extracted data. Inductive analysis identified behavioural criteria and tool characteristics.</p> Results <p>Twenty-four studies met inclusion criteria. Most assessed balance and gait using ordinal scales. Berg Balance Scale and Dynamic Gait Index showed high reliability and validity; Mini-BEST and POMA demonstrated moderate properties. Feasibility was inconsistently reported. Limitations included moderate clinical burden, ceiling/floor effects, reliance on trained raters, equipment requirements, and lack of a standardised framework.</p> Conclusions <p>Process-oriented assessments are limited by inconsistent psychometric quality, feasibility constraints, and a lack of standardisation, highlighting a critical gap in qualitative assessment.</p> Significance/implications <p>Validated process-oriented criteria may enable scalable digital mobility assessment integration, allowing for earlier detection, tailored interventions, reduced falls risk, and streamlined clinical workflows without extensive training or specialised equipment.</p>

错误：搜索内容不能为空，请输入英文关键词
错误：关键词超出字数限制，请精简
高级检索

Qualitative assessment of mobility in older adults: a scoping review of process-oriented behavioural criteria

  • 期刊论文

  • 出版模式：

    开放获取

  • 发表日期：

    2026年4月9日

查看全文
  • Natalie Lander,
  • Costas Glavas,
  • Anoohya Gandham,
  • Ana Maria Contardo Ayala,
  • L. Eduardo Cofre Lizama,
  • Yuxin Zhang,
  • Jackson Fyfe,
  • Tao Zhou,
  • David Scott,
  • Robin Daly

摘要

Background/Objectives

Mobility decline is a strong predictor of falls, fractures, and disability in older adults and is associated with sarcopenia, kinesiophobia, reduced physical activity, and poorer quality of life. Early identification is essential to mitigate deterioration. Yet, most clinical assessments emphasise performance outcomes (e.g., time, repetitions) and often overlook early qualitative signs of mobility deterioration. Process-oriented assessments evaluating movement quality may offer greater sensitivity but are seldom used given time, resource, and training constraints. Digital technologies could overcome barriers, but practical evidence-based tools remain limited. This review aimed to identify process-oriented behavioural criteria for qualitatively assessing functional mobility in older adults, establishing a foundation for digital mobility assessments.

Methods

Following Joanna Briggs Institute and PRISMA-ScR guidelines, six databases (MEDLINE Complete, APA PsycInfo, CINAHL, Sport Discus, Embase, Web of Science) were searched from inception to September 2025. Six reviewers independently screened studies and extracted data. Inductive analysis identified behavioural criteria and tool characteristics.

Results

Twenty-four studies met inclusion criteria. Most assessed balance and gait using ordinal scales. Berg Balance Scale and Dynamic Gait Index showed high reliability and validity; Mini-BEST and POMA demonstrated moderate properties. Feasibility was inconsistently reported. Limitations included moderate clinical burden, ceiling/floor effects, reliance on trained raters, equipment requirements, and lack of a standardised framework.

Conclusions

Process-oriented assessments are limited by inconsistent psychometric quality, feasibility constraints, and a lack of standardisation, highlighting a critical gap in qualitative assessment.

Significance/implications

Validated process-oriented criteria may enable scalable digital mobility assessment integration, allowing for earlier detection, tailored interventions, reduced falls risk, and streamlined clinical workflows without extensive training or specialised equipment.