Validity and reliability of a new clinician-rated tool for freezing of gait severity.

PURPOSE: The Freezing of Gait Severity Tool (FOG Tool) was developed because of limitations in existing assessments. This cross-sectional study investigated its validity and reliability. METHODS: People with Parkinson's disease (PD) were recruited consecutively from clinics. Those who could not walk eight-metres independently (with or without an assistive device), comprehend instructions, or with co-morbidities affecting walking were excluded. Participants completed a set of assessments including the FOG Tool, Timed Up and Go (TUG), and Freezing of Gait Questionnaire. The FOG Tool was repeated and those reporting no medication state change evaluated for test-retest reliability. Validity and reliability were investigated through Spearman's correlations and ICC (two-way, random). McNemar's test was applied to compare the FOG Tool and TUG on the proportion of people with freezing. RESULTS: Thirty-nine participants were recruited [79.5%(n = 31) male; Median(IQR): age-73.0(9.0) years; disease duration-4.0(5.8) years]. Fifteen (38.5%) contributed to test-retest reliability analyses. The FOG Tool demonstrated strongest associations with the Freezing of Gait Questionnaire (ρ = 0.67, 95%CI 0.43-0.83). Test-retest reliability was excellent (ICC = 0.96, 95%CI 0.88-0.99). The FOG Tool had 6.2 times the odds (95%CI 2.4-20.4, p < 0.001) of triggering freezing compared to the TUG. CONCLUSIONS: The FOG Tool appeared adequately valid and reliable in this small sample of people with PD. It was more successful in triggering freezing than the TUG.Implications for RehabilitationThe Freezing of Gait Severity Tool's assessment course is more effective than the commonly-used Timed Up and Go's assessment course for eliciting freezing of gait for clinical evaluation in people with Parkinson's disease.The Freezing of Gait Severity Tool can be considered for scoring freezing of gait severity in people with Parkinson's disease in the clinical setting.

Older adults' views on barriers and facilitators to participate in a multifactorial falls prevention program: Results from Prevquedas Brasil.

OBJECTIVES: To understand the reasons older people engage in a multifactorial fall prevention program and, to identify the barriers and facilitators for adherence. METHODS: Cross-sectional study, with 218 older adults from the intervention group of a 12-week multifactorial fall prevention program (Prevquedas Brazil). We interviewed participants using a semi-structured questionnaire concerning reasons to engage in, barriers, and facilitators to participating in the program. We compared participants with low (0-5 sessions) and moderate/high (6-12 sessions) adherence regarding barriers and facilitators. RESULTS: Physical and mental health problems (55 %), and competing demands (45.2 %) were the most frequent barriers reported. Pleasant environment (97.7 %), a sense of receiving proper care (96.7 %), and empathy with the team (96.7 %) were the main facilitators. Seven out of the twelve facilitators distinguished participants with high adherence from those with low adherence. Only the barriers related to the program characteristics and the lack of social support were able to identify participants with low adherence. Open-ended questions revealed that self-determination, commitment, and the desire of being physically active and fit promoted participation. Anticipated health benefits and functional gains, a need to take action due to fall consequences, and encouragement from others were among the reasons to engage in the program. CONCLUSION: Although barriers should not be neglected, facilitators are critically important for adherence. Health professionals may develop skills to facilitate uptake and optimize older adults' participation. Implementing sustainable fall prevention programs in low and middle-income countries requires overcoming the fragmentation and inflexibility of healthcare services.

Bone Mineral Changes in Epilepsy Patients During Initial Years of Antiepileptic Drug Therapy.

Antiepileptic drug (AED) therapy is associated with decreased bone mineral density; however, the time course for this development is unclear. The aim of this study was to evaluate bone mineral changes during the initial years of AED therapy in AED-naive, newly diagnosed epilepsy patients compared with non-AED users. In 49 epilepsy patients newly started on AEDs and in 53 non-AED users of both genders, bone mineral density (BMD) and bone mineral content were measured using dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry at baseline (within the first year of therapy) and at least 1 yr later. Bone changes between the 2 assessments, adjusted for age, height, and weight, were calculated as the annual rate of change. The median duration of AED therapy was 3.5 mo at baseline and 27.6 mo at follow-up. No overall difference was found in mean BMD and bone mineral content measures between user and nonuser cohorts in both cross-sectional baseline and the annual rate of change (p > 0.05). However, users on carbamazepine monotherapy (n = 11) had an increased annual rate of total hip (-2.1% vs -0.8%, p = 0.020) and femoral neck BMD loss (-2.1% vs -0.6%, p = 0.032) compared to nonusers. They also had a marginally higher rate of femoral neck BMD loss (-2.1%, p = 0.049) compared with valproate (-0.1%, n = 13) and levetiracetam users (+0.6%, n = 13). During the initial years of AED treatment for epilepsy, no difference was found in bone measures between AED users as a group and nonuser cohorts. However, the data suggested that carbamazepine monotherapy was associated with increased bone loss at the hip regions, compared to users of levetiracetam or valproate and nonusers. Larger studies of longer duration are warranted to better delineate the bone effects of specific AEDs, with further consideration of the role of early dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry scanning and careful AED selection in potentially minimizing the impact on bone health in these patients.

Effectiveness of Individualized Home-Based Exercise on Turning and Balance Performance Among Adults Older than 50 yrs: A Randomized Controlled Trial.

OBJECTIVE: This study evaluated the effectiveness of an individualized home-based exercise program that included specific turning exercises in improving turning performance in adults identified as having unsteadiness during turning. DESIGN: A single-blind (assessors) randomized controlled trial was conducted with 68 community-dwelling Malaysians aged 50 yrs and older, who had abnormal turning performance (outside of age and sex, normal limits on the Step/Quick Turn Test [180-degree turn task on the NeuroCom Balance Master with long plate]). The intervention group received a 16-wk home exercise program that included two turning exercises, whereas the control group maintained their usual activities. RESULTS: Significant group × time effects were found using two-way repeated-measures analysis of variance for turning and balance/mobility measures. The intervention group significantly improved relative to the control group for (1) sway when turning 180 degrees Step/Quick Turn, F1,65 = 8.070, P = 0.006; (2) time to perform 180-degree turn Step/Quick Turn, F1,65 = 8.216, P = 0.006; (3) Timed Up and Go (single task), F1,65 = 6.647, P = 0.012; (4) Timed Up and Go (dual task), F1,65 = 8.301, P = 0.005; and (5) static stance sway, F1,65 = 10.491, P = 0.002. CONCLUSIONS: An individualized home exercise program that included specific exercises to improve turning ability was effective in improving turning performance in adults older than 50 yrs.

Falls and fractures in patients chronically treated with antiepileptic drugs.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate fractures and falls in epilepsy patients taking antiepileptic drugs (AED) and to assess their awareness of AED-related bone health, falls, and fracture risk. METHODS: A cross-sectional study was conducted in epilepsy patients taking AEDs and in nonepileptic non-AED users. Information on falls and fracture history was collected. RESULTS: A total of 150 AED users were compared with 506 non-AED users. Users had greater odds of fracture at spine (odds ratio [OR] 3.92; confidence interval [CI] 1.08-14.16; p = 0.037), clavicle (OR 3.75; CI 1.24-11.34; p = 0.019), and ankle sites (OR 2.34; CI 1.01-5.42; p = 0.048), increased odds for osteoporosis (OR 4.62; CI 1.40-15.30; p = 0.012), and fracture occasions (OR 2.64; CI 1.29-5.43; p = 0.008). We estimate that with every year of AED use the odds of fractures increase by 4%-6%, or 40% per decade for any fracture (OR 1.40; CI 1.02-1.91) and 60% for seizure-related fractures (OR 1.63; CI 1.10-2.37). Non-seizure-related fractures (69% of cumulative fractures) occurred more than seizure-related fractures during therapy. Female users, compared to female nonusers, had more non-seizure falls (31% vs 17%, p = 0.027) and multiple falls (18% vs 5%, p = 0.028) in the preceding year. Fewer than 30% of epilepsy patients knew of the association of AED use with increased risk for fractures, decreased bone mineral density, or falls. CONCLUSIONS: Epilepsy patients taking AEDs had a higher risk of fractures, which was highest in those with longer-term AED exposure. Female AED users had a higher prevalence of falls than matched nonusers. Awareness among epilepsy patients regarding risks of falling and fractures was low.