Next Article in Journal
Dynamic Evolution Analysis of the Emergency Collaboration Network for Compound Disasters: A Case Study Involving a Public Health Emergency and an Accident Disaster during COVID-19
Next Article in Special Issue
The Effect of a Resistance Training, Detraining and Retraining Cycle on Postural Stability and Estimated Fall Risk in Institutionalized Older Persons: A 40-Week Intervention
Previous Article in Journal
Effects of Electrical Stimulation of Acupoints on Xerostomia for Patients Who Undergo Hemodialysis
Previous Article in Special Issue
Vertical Jump Tests: A Safe Instrument to Improve the Accuracy of the Functional Capacity Assessment in Robust Older Women
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Healthcare
Volume 10
Issue 3
10.3390/healthcare10030499
healthcare-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Balance Differences between North and South American Older Adults: A Cross-Sectional, Age and Sex Matched Study

by
Matheus Almeida Souza
1,
Daniel Goble
2,
Paige Arney
2,
Edgar Ramos Vieira
3,
Gabriela Silveira-Nunes
4,
Leonardo Intelangelo
5,
Michelle Almeida Barbosa
1 and
Alexandre Carvalho Barbosa
1,*
1
Musculoskeletal Research Group—NIME, Department of Physical Therapy, Federal University of Juiz de Fora, Juiz de Fora 36036-900, Brazil
2
Department of Exercise Science, Oakland University, Rochester, MI 48309, USA
3
Department of Physical Therapy, Florida International University, Miami, FL 33179, USA
4
Musculoskeletal Research Group—NIME, Department of Medicine, Federal University of Juiz de Fora, Governador Valadares 35010-180, Brazil
5
Musculoskeletal Research Unit—UIM, Department of Physical Therapy, University Center for Assistance, Teaching and Research—CUADI, Universidad del Gran Rosario—UGR, Corrientes 1254, Argentina
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Healthcare 2022, 10(3), 499; https://doi.org/10.3390/healthcare10030499
Submission received: 2 February 2022 / Revised: 22 February 2022 / Accepted: 3 March 2022 / Published: 9 March 2022
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Exercise Evaluation and Prescription in Older Adults)
Browse Figures
Review Reports Versions Notes

Abstract

:
This study aimed to characterize the risk of falling in low-, moderate- and high-risk participants from two different geographical locations using a portable force-plate. A sample of 390 older adults from South and North America were matched for age, sex, height and weight. All participants performed a standardized balance assessment using a force plate. Participants were classified in low, moderate and high risk of falling. No differences were observed between South and North American men, nor comparing North American men and women. South American women showed the significantly shorter center of pressure path length compared to other groups. The majority of the sample was categorized as having low risk of falling (male: 65.69% and female: 61.87%), with no differences between men and women. Moreover, no differences were found between North vs. South Americans, nor between male and female groups compared separately. In conclusion, South American women had better balance compatible with the status of the 50–59 years’ normative age-range. The prevalence of low falls risk was~61–65%; the prevalence of moderate to high risk was~16–19%. The frequency of fall risk did not differ significantly between North and South Americans, nor between males and females.

1. Introduction

The worldwide expansion of the older adult population is a well-established trend [1,2]. Aging is associated with declines in neuromuscular function and physical performance [3,4], increased risk of falling, hospitalization, fractures and mortality [3,5,6]. The annual prevalence of falls among older adults in the two largest South American countries has been estimated to be 27% (Brazil) and 28.5% (Argentina), respectively. This is similar to the rate seen in the United States (28.7%) [7,8]. The personal and economic burden of falling is significant, representing a total cost of billions of dollars to the public healthcare systems [9,10]. Examining risk factors for falls, such as impaired balance, may help identify those at risk and alleviate the physical and psychological impacts of falls.
Balance depends on the ability to maintain the center of mass over one’s base of support and is achieved via coordination of complex sensory, motor, and biomechanical processes [11,12]. For older adults, balance is especially important in order to recover from disturbances and to prevent falls [13,14,15]. Poor balance is associated with aging-related physical decline [16,17], with impaired balance variables being correlated to increased falls risk [18,19]. Poor balance and impaired mobility are associated with a 33% increased risk of recurrent falls in older adults [20].
Balance can be accurately and reliably measured using a force plate device [21,22]. Force plates measure postural sway based on center of pressure (COP) oscillations, which is equal to the weighted average of forces created when people stand on the force plate for a previously set amount of time [23,24]. Older adults who fall repeatedly have a greater magnitude of COP oscillations than those without a history of falling [25,26]. Furthermore, older people with increased postural sway present a greater likelihood of falling [21,25,26].
Force plate-based balance assessments in older adults have been somewhat limited due to cost ($10,000–$100,000), technical difficulties, and time/training to process and extract data from the raw signals [27,28]. Force plates often lack user-friendly software that are time efficient, reliable, and intuitive [29]. However, recent developments led to reliable and low-cost force plates with user-friendly software [30]. The Balance Tracking System (BTrackS, Balance Tracking System, San Diego, CA, USA) is a low-cost (<$2000) and portable (<7 kg, USB-powered) force plate (FDA class 1 registered device) with user-friendly software for balance assessment that has been shown to be valid and reliable for testing community-dwelling older adults [31]. BTrackS has also been shown to accurately detect the risk of falling in older adults based on their balance indicators [29].
The largest known normative database of older adult balance was created using the BTrackS balance and fall risk test protocol [32]. This protocol measures the postural sway of an individual while standing still with eyes closed for three trials of 20-s. The numerical results are converted in a categorical model according to a predefined range of body sway, allowing early detection of balance impairments [29,31]. According to a manufacturer report (https://balancetrackingsystems.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/Validating-BTrackS-FRA.pdf (accessed on 20 November 2021)), the low-risk category equates to a 29% likelihood of falling in the next 12 months. This likelihood rises to 42% for those in the moderate category, and to 51% for those classified in the high risk category [29].
One limitation of the BTrackS system is that the normative data utilized is almost exclusively based on values from the United States population. Considering the lack of studies comparing balance data in different locations, the primary aim of the present study was to compare the balance of a representative sample of healthy North and South American older adults by sex. Additionally, this study aimed to characterize the risk of falling in low-, moderate- and high-risk categories using BTrackS criteria. It was hypothesized that balance and falls risk would not be significantly different between North and South America older adults, nor between older men and women.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Participants

The present study was a cross-sectional from a secondary analysis of the balance data collected from previous studies with older adults using the same equipment and procedure for all participants. A total of 390 older adults (≥60 years of age) of both sexes were included (Table 1). Participants were taken from two geographical locations (North vs. South America) and closely matched for age, sex, height and weight. The sample selection also considered the previously reported higher frequency of falls in women compared to their male counterpart [7,33,34]. Specifically, the participants were selected from three of the largest countries on the South and North American continents: Brazil and Argentina (South America), as well as the United States (North America). Data for the North and South American sample was sub-sampled from an existing database of balance performance in healthy, community dwelling individuals. Data was collected at multiple sites, including community centers, fitness facilities and wellness/health fairs. The participants were selected in a deliberate fashion so as to match the age, height and weight characteristics of each individual in the South American sample. Four comparison groups were, therefore, determined from the sample including: South American Men, North American Men, South American Women, and North American Women.
All procedures were performed on-site without any prior practice. Attendance was taken as compliance with the assessment protocol. No co-interventions were performed in either group; no adverse effects were reported by any participant during any procedure. Prior to testing, the participants were familiarized with all physical assessment procedures. The sample was physically independent (level 3 or 4 on Functional Status) [35], and cognitively able to understand the procedures (score > 21 on the Mini-Mental State Examination for people with low education) [36]. Exclusion criteria were incidence of cardiovascular disease, unstable proliferative retinopathy, end-stage renal disease, and uncontrolled hypertension [37]. All participants were free of any knee or hip injury that could affect their balance. The participants were also cleared from medication that could cause dizziness as a side effect.
Based on a post hoc power calculation an obtained effect size (ε2) of 0.252, with an alpha level of 5%, was determined for the total sample size of 390; an actual power of 0.992 was determined for the four individual groups. The sample power was calculated using G-POWER™ software (Version 3.1.5, Franz Faul, Universitat Kiel, Kiel, Germany). Procedures for this study were approved by the institutional review boards from all countries involved (Argentinian protocol number 38/16 UGR-Rosario; Brazilian protocol number 59862316.7.0000.5147; USA protocol number 2203100).

2.2. Equipment and Procedure

The BTrackS Balance Plate (Balance Tracking System, San Diego, CA, USA) was used to assess balance. This device consists of a force platform (40 × 60 cm, sampling frequency of 25 Hz) with four implanted strain gauges that determine the center-of-pression (COP) excursion distance when stood upon. The BTrackS sampling frequency satisfied the Nyquist theorem for the slow (<10 Hz) COP changes measured in the present study. Previous work has shown BTrackS to perform with the same accuracy/precision as a laboratory-grade force platform [30]. Prior to testing, the force platform was leveled via adjustable legs, and connected to the computer through a USB cable, which also provided power to the plate.
The procedure for testing required all participants to perform four, 20 s two-legged stance trials (Figure 1). The first trial was for familiarization and was discarded before analysis. The remaining three, non-familiarization trials were used to determine the result. Trials were conducted in a closed room to reduce noise and disturbances. Participants were instructed to firstly look straight ahead and to stand as still as possible on the BTrackS Balance Plate with eyes closed, hands on hips and feet shoulder width apart. Participants were monitored by the tester during all trials to avoid a fall episode.
The result for each test was calculated by the BTrackS Assess Balance software, equivalent to the average total COP path length in centimeters (cm) across accountable trials. COP path length is a proxy for postural sway magnitude where larger BBT values are indicative of greater postural sway [21,32,38]. Path length was determined by first quantifying the distance between successive registered COP locations according to the following formula:
distance = ([COPx2 − COPx1]2 + [COPy2 − COPy1]2)0.5
where COPx2 and COPx1 are adjacent time-points in the COPx (medial/lateral) time series, and COPy2 and COPy1 are adjacent time-points in the COPy (anterior/posterior) time series. The sum of all distances was then added together to obtain the total path length. Participants were also classified into one of three fall risk categories: low risk (postural sway range: 0–32 cm for men and 0–30 cm for women); moderate risk (postural sway range: 33–40 cm for men and 31–38 cm for women); and high risk (postural sway range: 41+ for men and 39+ for women) [27].

2.3. Statistical Analysis

Shapiro–Wilk and the Levene’s tests were first performed to assess the normality and equality of variances for each group tested. Given that normality was not achieved, descriptives for this study are presented as median, minimum and maximum values. For statistical comparisons of group data, non-parametric Kruskall–Wallis tests were used with Dwass–Steel–Critchlow–Fligner post hoc correction to protect against multiple comparisons. The between-group fall risk categorization frequencies (low-, moderate- and high-risk) were evaluated using a chi-square test for ordinal comparisons. Significance was set at the p < 0.05 level for all tests. Standardized differences for comparisons were analyzed using the rank biserial correlation effect size (ES). The magnitude of the ES was qualitatively interpreted using the following thresholds: 0.01–0.19; small: 0.20–0.49; moderate: 0.50–0.79; large: 0.8–1.19; very large: 1.2–1.99; and huge: >2 [39]. All analysis was performed using the JAMOVI software (version 1.6.15.0, 2021; retrieved from https://www.jamovi.org (accessed on 4 September 2021)).

3. Results

No differences were observed between men (South American men: median = 32 cm (minimum–maximum: 16–75 cm), Northern American men: 33 cm (16–79 cm); p = 0.99; ES = 0.001), nor comparing North American men and women (North American women: 27 cm (10–115 cm); p = 0.14; ES = 0.21). However, South American women showed the lowest path length compared to other groups (South American women: 24 cm (10–70 cm); all p < 0.05), with effect sizes ranging from small to moderate (Figure 2).
Considering the overall sample, the majority of the sample was categorized as low risk of falling (male: 65.69% and female: 61.87%). The frequency of the low-risk category was higher (χ2 = 8.32, p = 0.016) compared to the moderate- (men: 16.34% and women: 18.18%) and high-risk categories (male: 17.97% and female: 19.95%). No differences were observed comparing men vs. women. Moreover, no differences were found between North vs. South America (Table 2), nor for categories’ frequencies when male or female groups were compared separately.

4. Discussion

The primary focus of the present study was to compare the balance of North vs. South American older adults grouped by sex using the same device (i.e., BTrackS). Only South American women showed differences compared to other groups, with improved postural control (i.e., better balance) at a small-to-moderate effect size. There were no differences seen in the probability of fall risk across sex and geographic region. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first study comparing the balance of a representative sample of older adults from distinct continents using a standardized protocol with the same device. These results suggest that balance ability may differ to some extent across large geographical areas. In this case, pre-existing balance norms would require some adjustment based on geographic location and sex demographics.
In contrast to our results, one previous study showed decreased balance control in older women compared to men [40]. The authors also reported that older women had greater COP displacement but less sway velocity than their male counterpart, especially in mediolateral direction. However, the protocol used to assess the balance included only 2 trials with open eyes, 30 s of data collection and 5 min of rest between trials. The present protocol was performed with closed eyes, as vision is a major contributor to postural stability [41]. The visual system inputs information on head position relative to the surrounding environment, which might be used in a feedforward fashion to anticipate a loss in balance [42]. On the other hand, the closed eyes task imposes greater efforts on the proprioceptive system, becoming the main source of neural feedback during an imbalance situation [13,42,43]. Further, the current protocol was extensively validated in thousands of subjects, with consistent results showing greater postural sway in older men compared to age-matched older women [21,30,42,44]. One of these previous studies compared the balance results of 812 older men compared to 2341 older women, with a mean difference of ~ 8 cm on the path length variable [21]. The difference was consistent across all three ranges of older age (60–70, 70–80, and 80+ years).
The male groups’ overall results, along with the North American women, are in accordance to those expected for their age [21]. The South American women, however, showed a body sway compatible with younger normative data (~50–59 years). Due to the study design, no cause–effect can be inferred from the present results. Nevertheless, it is well known that some factors may influence the balance outcomes in older adults. According to an updated meta-analysis with 19,478 participants, the greater effects were seen from exercise protocols that challenged balance and that involved more than 3 h/week of exercise [45,46,47]. Thus, a possible explanation for the present results could be the South American women’s engagement in physical activities impacting the musculoskeletal development and the consequent balance improvements. However, the Brazilian Longitudinal Study of Aging (ELSI-Brazil), a nationally representative, population-based cohort study of persons aged 50 years or more, accounted 8736 individuals (53.5% were women) in a study that showed that declines in physical activity levels with increasing age were significantly more evident among women [48]. Another possible explanation for the present findings is the possible higher rate of falls and frailty in North American older adults (15%) compared to South American older adults (9%) [49,50]. Physical frailty is characterized by weakness, slowness, and reduced muscle mass, yet with preserved ability to move independently [51]. In this sense, the balance might be impaired due to inability of the sensory system combined with muscle inefficiency to recover from perturbations on the COP placed by external forces ( e.g., gravity, body mass distribution, inertia) acting over stabilizing internal torques (mainly muscle and ligament forces). [52,53] As an example, decreased strength is related to diminished postural control, which is associated with increased risk of falls [53]. Impaired balance is also predictive of bad outcomes in older adults, such as frailty and higher prevalence of falls [14,54,55]. Considering the overall prevalence of falls, South American older adults have an average rate of 27% while North American older adults have a higher rate of 28.7% (33.9% in certain states) [8,56,57].
A secondary aim of the present study was to examine the frequency of low, moderate and high risk of falling. Despite the higher percentage of overall older people under low risk of falling independent of location, an important proportion of participants was classified as moderate or high risk of falling (~35%). Balance is maintained or restored in the hip strategy mainly by movement of the body around the hip and trunk, while, in the ankle strategy, it is restored mainly by the movement of the body around the ankle as a single inverted pendulum with minimal movement about superior joints [58,59]. In an unexpected situation of imbalance, an older adult at high risk of falling tends to use the hip strategy to maintain postural stability compared to others under low risk of falling [60]. The use of such a strategy may increase the confidence, as the COP tends to move faster to stay within the base of support [60]. Mechanically, the foot’s ability to exert torque in contact with the support surface limits the ankle strategy, as distal muscles are acting far from the body’s COP to stabilize the full body sway [59]. Although both strategies are biomechanically different, they have the main goal to maintain the forward progression and the upright balance.
As individuals in the moderate and high risk category are recommended to be targeted for balance intervention programs [29], health care professionals may benefit their older patients with early diagnostics and active intervention to prevent bad outcomes that follows an episode of fall (e.g., head trauma, spine and hip fractures, hospitalization) [61,62]. Moreover, a comprehensive balance screening focused on the lower limb and trunk’s muscles is essential to target the segments in need of care, as the current protocol is performed using the ankle strategy. Thus, the classification is also based on the level of COP displacement considering only this strategy.
An important limitation of the present study is the cross-sectional design, which does not allow cause–effect inferences. Further investigation is needed to determine changes over time in individuals receiving interventions to improve the balance status. It is also important to address that the present study only assessed the postural balance, one aspect of the functionality. The level of physical function of the sample was also a limitation. Although the falling status was properly categorized between groups, all participants were at a high functioning level. Institutionalized older women or those presenting high levels of frailty may show distinct balance patterns.

5. Conclusions

South and North American men have the same balance status, as well as the North American women. On the other hand, South American women showed improved balance compatible with the status of the previous normative age-range (50–59 years). A higher percentage of overall older people under low risk of falling was observed independent of location, but an important proportion of participants was classified as moderate or high risk of falling. The balance categories frequencies did not vary considering the location (South vs. North), nor considering the gender factor.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, A.C.B. and D.G.; methodology, A.C.B.; software, A.C.B. and M.A.S.; validation, M.A.S., M.A.B. and G.S.-N.; formal analysis, A.C.B., D.G. and E.R.V.; investigation, M.A.S., P.A. and L.I.; resources, A.C.B., L.I. and D.G.; data curation, P.A., D.G. and A.C.B.; writing—original draft preparation, A.C.B., E.R.V. and D.G.; writing—review and editing, D.G., E.R.V., A.C.B. and P.A.; visualization, M.A.S. and M.A.B.; supervision, A.C.B. and D.G.; project administration, A.C.B. and D.G.; funding acquisition, D.G. and A.C.B. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This study was supported in part by the Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior—Brasil (CAPES)—Finance Code 001 and by the Fundação de Amparo à Pesquisa de Minas Gerais (FAPEMIG). This research was funded by the Federal University of Juiz de Fora, supporting the APC.

Institutional Review Board Statement

The study was conducted according to the guidelines of the Declaration of Helsinki, and approved by the Ethics Committee of the Federal University of Juiz de Fora—Brazil (protocol number 59862316.7.0000.5147); University of Gran Rosario—Argentina (protocol number 38/16); Oakland University—USA (protocol number 2203100).

Informed Consent Statement

Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study.

Data Availability Statement

Raw data is available from the following doi: 10.17632/cyg8vcxytn.1.

Acknowledgments

Special thanks to UFJF-GV Department of Physical Therapy and the staff of the NIME/UFJF-GV.

Conflicts of Interest

D.G. receives royalties from a patent (US Patent 10,660,558) related to the balance technology in this study. In addition, he has an equity stake (i.e., stock options) and performs contract work for Balance Tracking Systems Inc., the parent company of the BTrackS Balance Plate and BTrackS Assess Balance Advance software. This conflict is mitigated by a management plan put in place by his academic institution (Oakland University) to ensure the integrity of his research. The other authors of this work have no conflict of interest to declare.

References

  1. Raj, I.S.; Bird, S.R.; Shield, A.J. Aging and the force–velocity relationship of muscles. Exp. Gerontol. 2010, 45, 81–90. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  2. Department of Economic and Social Affairs Population. DivisionWorld Population Ageing 2019 Highlights; UN: New York, NY, USA, 2019; ISBN 9789210045537. [Google Scholar]
  3. Yeung, S.S.Y.; Reijnierse, E.M.; Pham, V.K.; Trappenburg, M.C.; Lim, W.K.; Meskers, C.G.M.; Maier, A.B. Sarcopenia and its association with falls and fractures in older adults: A systematic review and meta-analysis. J. Cachexia. Sarcopenia Muscle 2019, 10, 485–500. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  4. Dent, E.; Morley, J.E.; Cruz-Jentoft, A.J.; Woodhouse, L.; Rodríguez-Mañas, L.; Fried, L.P.; Woo, J.; Aprahamian, I.; Sanford, A.; Lundy, J.; et al. Physical Frailty: ICFSR International Clinical Practice Guidelines for Identification and Management. J. Nutr. Heal. Aging 2019, 23, 771–787. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  5. Trombetti, A.; Reid, K.F.; Hars, M.; Herrmann, F.R.; Pasha, E.; Phillips, E.M.; Fielding, R.A. Age-associated declines in muscle mass, strength, power, and physical performance: Impact on fear of falling and quality of life. Osteoporos. Int. 2016, 27, 463–471. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  6. McKinnon, N.B.; Connelly, D.M.; Rice, C.L.; Hunter, S.W.; Doherty, T.J. Neuromuscular contributions to the age-related reduction in muscle power: Mechanisms and potential role of high velocity power training. Ageing Res. Rev. 2017, 35, 147–154. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  7. Chang, V.C.; Do, M.T. Risk Factors for Falls Among Seniors: Implications of Gender. Am. J. Epidemiol. 2015, 181, 521–531. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  8. Bergen, G.; Stevens, M.R.; Burns, E.R. Falls and Fall Injuries Among Adults Aged ≥ 65 Years—United States, 2014. MMWR Morb. Mortal. Wkly. Rep. 2016, 65, 993–998. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Heinrich, S.; Rapp, K.; Rissmann, U.; Becker, C.; König, H.-H. Cost of falls in old age: A systematic review. Osteoporos. Int. 2010, 21, 891–902. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Vieira, E.R.; Palmer, R.C.; Chaves, P.H.M. Prevention of falls in older people living in the community. BMJ 2016, 353, i1419. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  11. Pollock, A.S.; Durward, B.R.; Rowe, P.J.; Paul, J.P. What is balance? Clin. Rehabil. 2000, 14, 402–406. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Moral-Munoz, J.A.; Esteban-Moreno, B.; Herrera-Viedma, E.; Cobo, M.J.; Pérez, I.J. Smartphone Applications to Perform Body Balance Assessment: A Standardized Review. J. Med. Syst. 2018, 42, 119. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  13. Shumway-Cook, A.; Woollacott, M. Attentional demands and postural control: The effect of sensory context. J. Gerontol. A Biol. Sci. Med. Sci. 2000, 55, M10–M16. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  14. Howcroft, J.; Lemaire, E.D.; Kofman, J.; McIlroy, W.E. Elderly fall risk prediction using static posturography. PLoS ONE 2017, 12, e0172398. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  15. Amiridis, I.G.; Hatzitaki, V.; Arabatzi, F. Age-induced modifications of static postural control in humans. Neurosci. Lett. 2003, 350, 137–140. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Lesinski, M.; Hortobágyi, T.; Muehlbauer, T.; Gollhofer, A.; Granacher, U. Effects of Balance Training on Balance Performance in Healthy Older Adults: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. Sports Med. 2015, 45, 1721–1738. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  17. Hamed, A.; Bohm, S.; Mersmann, F.; Arampatzis, A. Follow-up efficacy of physical exercise interventions on fall incidence and fall risk in healthy older adults: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Sports Med. -Open 2018, 4, 56. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Kukidome, D.; Nishikawa, T.; Sato, M.; Nishi, Y.; Shimamura, R.; Kawashima, J.; Shimoda, S.; Mizuta, H.; Araki, E. Impaired balance is related to the progression of diabetic complications in both young and older adults. J. Diabetes Complicat. 2017, 31, 1275–1282. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Oliveira, M.R.; Vieira, E.R.; Gil, A.W.O.; Fernandes, K.B.P.; Teixeira, D.C.; Amorim, C.F.; Da Silva, R.A. One-legged stance sway of older adults with and without falls. PLoS ONE 2018, 13, e0203887. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  20. Jehu, D.A.; Davis, J.C.; Falck, R.S.; Bennett, K.J.; Tai, D.; Souza, M.F.; Cavalcante, B.R.; Zhao, M.; Liu-Ambrose, T. Risk factors for recurrent falls in older adults: A systematic review with meta-analysis. Maturitas 2021, 144, 23–28. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Goble, D.J.; Baweja, H.S. Postural sway normative data across the adult lifespan: Results from 6280 individuals on the Balance Tracking System balance test. Geriatr. Gerontol. Int. 2018, 18, 1225–1229. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Błaszczyk, J.W. The use of force-plate posturography in the assessment of postural instability. Gait Posture 2016, 44, 1–6. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Melzer, I.; Kurz, I.; Oddsson, L.I.E. A retrospective analysis of balance control parameters in elderly fallers and non-fallers. Clin. Biomech. 2010, 25, 984–988. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  24. Melzer, I. Postural stability in the elderly: A comparison between fallers and non-fallers. Age Ageing 2004, 33, 602–607. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  25. Johansson, J.; Jarocka, E.; Westling, G.; Nordström, A.; Nordström, P. Predicting incident falls: Relationship between postural sway and limits of stability in older adults. Hum. Mov. Sci. 2019, 66, 117–123. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  26. Johansson, J.; Nordström, A.; Gustafson, Y.; Westling, G.; Nordström, P. Increased postural sway during quiet stance as a risk factor for prospective falls in community-dwelling elderly individuals. Age Ageing 2017, 46, 964–970. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  27. Coxon, J.P.; Goble, D.J.; Leunissen, I.; Van Impe, A.; Wenderoth, N.; Swinnen, S.P. Functional Brain Activation Associated with Inhibitory Control Deficits in Older Adults. Cereb Cortex 2016, 26, 12–22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  28. O’Connor, S.M.; Baweja, H.S.; Goble, D.J.; O’Connor, S.M.; Baweja, H.S.; Goble, D.J. Validating the BTrackS Balance Plate as a low cost alternative for the measurement of sway-induced center of pressure. J. Biomech. 2016, 49, 4142–4145. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  29. Goble, D.J.; Baweja, N.; Baweja, H.S. BTrackS: A Low-Cost, Portable Force Plate for Objectively Measuring Balance Deficits and Fall Risk. Home Healthc. Now 2019, 37, 355–356. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  30. Goble, D.J.; Conner, N.O.; Nolff, M.R.; Haworth, J.L.; Kendall, B.J. Test-Retest Reliability of the Balance Tracking System Modified Clinical Test of Sensory Integration and Balance Protocol Across Multiple Time Durations. Med Devices (Auckl). 2021, 15, 355–361. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Levy, S.S.; Thralls, K.J.; Kviatkovsky, S.A. Validity and Reliability of a Portable Balance Tracking System, BTrackS, in Older Adults. J. Geriatr. Phys. Ther. 2018, 41, 102–107. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  32. Goble, D.J.; Baweja, H.S. Normative Data for the BTrackS Balance Test of Postural Sway: Results from 16,357 Community-Dwelling Individuals Who Were 5 to 100 Years Old. Phys. Ther. 2018, 98, 779–785. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  33. Gale, C.R.; Cooper, C.; Aihie Sayer, A. Prevalence and risk factors for falls in older men and women: The English Longitudinal Study of Ageing. Age Ageing 2016, 45, 789–794. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  34. Vieira, L.S.; Gomes, A.P.; Bierhals, I.O.; Farías-Antúnez, S.; Ribeiro, C.G.; Miranda, V.I.A.; Lutz, B.H.; Barbosa-Silva, T.G.; Lima, N.P.; Bertoldi, A.D.; et al. Falls among older adults in the South of Brazil: Prevalence and determinants. Rev. Saude Publica 2018, 52, 22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  35. Snejdrlova, M.; Kalvach, Z.; Topinkova, E.; Vrablik, M.; Prochazkova, R.; Kvasilova, M.; Lanska, V.; Zlatohlavek, L.; Prusikova, M.; Ceska, R. APOE polymorphism as a potential determinant of functional fitness in the elderly regardless of nutritional status. Neuro Endocrinol. Lett. 2011, 32 (Suppl. S2), 51–54. [Google Scholar]
  36. Folstein, M.F.; Folstein, S.E.; McHugh, P.R. “Mini-mental state”: A practical method for grading the cognitive state of patients for the clinician. J. Psychiatr. Res. 1975, 12, 189–198. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Young, W.R.; Mark Williams, A. How fear of falling can increase fall-risk in older adults: Applying psychological theory to practical observations. Gait Posture 2015, 41, 7–12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  38. Goble, D.J.; Hearn, M.C.; Baweja, H.S. Combination of BTrackS and Geri-Fit as a targeted approach for assessing and reducing the postural sway of older adults with high fall risk. Clin. Interv. Aging 2017, 12, 351–357. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  39. Sawilowsky, S.S. New Effect Size Rules of Thumb. J. Mod. Appl. Stat. Methods 2009, 8, 597–599. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Kim, J.-W.; Eom, G.-M.; Kim, C.-S.; Kim, D.-H.; Lee, J.-H.; Park, B.K.; Hong, J. Sex differences in the postural sway characteristics of young and elderly subjects during quiet natural standing. Geriatr. Gerontol. Int. 2010, 10, 191–198. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Beauchet, O.; Levinoff, E.J.; Allali, G. Decrease in Upright Postural Sway from Open to Closed Eyes: Episodic Memory Impairment Matters, Too. J. Am. Geriatr. Soc. 2016, 64, 1142–1144. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  42. Goble, D.J.; Brar, H.; Brown, E.C.; Marks, C.R.; Baweja, H.S. Normative data for the Balance Tracking System modified Clinical Test of Sensory Integration and Balance protocol. Med. Devices Evid. Res. 2019, 12, 183–191. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  43. Chen, E.W.; Fu, A.S.N.; Chan, K.M.; Tsang, W.W.N. Balance control in very old adults with and without visual impairment. Eur. J. Appl. Physiol. 2012, 112, 1631–1636. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  44. Goble, D.J.; Manyak, K.A.; Abdenour, T.E.; Rauh, M.J.; Baweja, H.S. An initial evaluation of the btracks balance plate and sports balance software for concussion diagnosis. Int. J. Sports Phys. Ther. 2016, 11, 149–155. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  45. Sherrington, C.; Michaleff, Z.A.; Fairhall, N.; Paul, S.S.; Tiedemann, A.; Whitney, J.; Cumming, R.G.; Herbert, R.D.; Close, J.C.T.; Lord, S.R. Exercise to prevent falls in older adults: An updated systematic review and meta-analysis. Br. J. Sports Med. 2017, 51, 1750–1758. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  46. Morrison, S.; Colberg, S.R.; Parson, H.K.; Vinik, A.I. Relation between risk of falling and postural sway complexity in diabetes. Gait Posture 2012, 35, 662–668. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Franco, M.R.; Grande, G.H.D.D.; Padulla, S.A.T.T. Effect of pilates exercise for improving balance in older adults (PEDro synthesis). Br. J. Sports Med. 2018, 52, 199–200. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  48. Peixoto, S.V.; Mambrini, J.V.d.M.; Firmo, J.O.A.; Loyola Filho, A.I.d.; Souza Junior, P.R.B.d.; Andrade, F.B.d.; Lima-Costa, M.F. Physical activity practice among older adults. Rev. Saude Publica 2019, 52, 5s. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  49. Andrade, J.M.; Duarte, Y.A.d.O.; Alves, L.C.; Andrade, F.C.D.; Souza Junior, P.R.d.; Lima-Costa, M.F.; Andrade, F.B.d. Frailty profile in Brazilian older adults. Rev. Saude Publica 2019, 52, 17s. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  50. Bandeen-Roche, K.; Seplaki, C.L.; Huang, J.; Buta, B.; Kalyani, R.R.; Varadhan, R.; Xue, Q.-L.; Walston, J.D.; Kasper, J.D. Frailty in Older Adults: A Nationally Representative Profile in the United States. J. Gerontol. Ser. A Biol. Sci. Med. Sci. 2015, 70, 1427–1434. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  51. Billot, M.; Calvani, R.; Urtamo, A.; Sánchez-Sánchez, J.L.; Ciccolari-Micaldi, C.; Chang, M.; Roller-Wirnsberger, R.; Wirnsberger, G.; Sinclair, A.; Vaquero-Pinto, M.N.; et al. Preserving Mobility in Older Adults with Physical Frailty and Sarcopenia: Opportunities, Challenges, and Recommendations for Physical Activity Interventions. Clin. Interv. Aging 2020, 15, 1675–1690. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  52. Toosizadeh, N.; Mohler, J.; Wendel, C.; Najafi, B. Influences of Frailty Syndrome on Open-Loop and Closed-Loop Postural Control Strategy. Gerontology 2015, 61, 51–60. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  53. Marques, L.T.; Rodrigues, N.C.; Angeluni, E.O.; dos Santos Pessanha, F.P.A.; da Cruz Alves, N.M.; Freire Júnior, R.C.; Ferriolli, E.; de Abreu, D.C.C. Balance Evaluation of Prefrail and Frail Community-Dwelling Older Adults. J. Geriatr. Phys. Ther. 2019, 42, 176–182. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  54. Tsai, Y.C.; Hsieh, L.F.; Yang, S. Age-related changes in posture response under a continuous and unexpected perturbation. J. Biomech. 2014, 47, 482–490. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  55. Ogilvie, M.; Wallen, M.P.; Talpey, S.W. Agile ageing—A modifiable vital sign to mitigate the risk of falls in older adults? Med. Hypotheses 2021, 148, 110517. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Filho, J.E.; Borel, W.P.; Mata Diz, J.B.; Carvalho Barbosa, A.W.; Britto, R.R.; Felício, D.C. Prevalence of falls and associated factors in community-dwelling older Brazilians: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Cad. Saude Publica 2019, 35, 1–16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Moreland, B.; Kakara, R.; Henry, A. Trends in Nonfatal Falls and Fall-Related Injuries Among Adults Aged ≥ 65 Years—United States, 2012–2018. MMWR. Morb. Mortal. Wkly. Rep. 2020, 69, 875–881. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  58. Horak, F.B.; Nashner, L.M. Central programming of postural movements: Adaptation to altered support-surface configurations. J. Neurophysiol. 1986, 55, 1369–1381. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Blenkinsop, G.M.; Pain, M.T.G.; Hiley, M.J. Balance control strategies during perturbed and unperturbed balance in standing and handstand. R. Soc. Open Sci. 2017, 4, 161018. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  60. Horak, F.B. Postural orientation and equilibrium: What do we need to know about neural control of balance to prevent falls? Age Ageing 2006, 35 (Suppl. S2), ii7–ii11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  61. Taylor, C.A.; Bell, J.M.; Breiding, M.J.; Xu, L. Traumatic Brain Injury–Related Emergency Department Visits, Hospitalizations, and Deaths—United States, 2007 and 2013. MMWR Surveill. Summ. 2017, 66, 1–16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Davenport, K.; Alazemi, M.; Sri-On, J.; Liu, S. Missed Opportunities to Diagnose and Intervene in Modifiable Risk Factors for Older Emergency Department Patients Presenting After a Fall. Ann. Emerg. Med. 2020, 76, 730–738. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Healthcare 10 00499 g001 550
Figure 1. BTracks testing setup for a fall risk assessment.
Figure 1. BTracks testing setup for a fall risk assessment.
Healthcare 10 00499 g001
Healthcare 10 00499 g002 550
Figure 2. Box plot of pairwise comparisons. Box trace = median values; box limits = minimum–maximum; vertical trace = standard deviation; dots = outliers; ES = effect size. Significant differences assigned.
Figure 2. Box plot of pairwise comparisons. Box trace = median values; box limits = minimum–maximum; vertical trace = standard deviation; dots = outliers; ES = effect size. Significant differences assigned.
Healthcare 10 00499 g002
Table
Table 1. Participants’ characteristics in median (minimum–maximum). Mann-Whitney non-parametric test results.
Table 1. Participants’ characteristics in median (minimum–maximum). Mann-Whitney non-parametric test results.
CharacteristicsMenWomen
SouthNorthpSouthNorthp
n4444-151151-
Age (years)70 (61–86)71 (61–87)0.8970 (60–98)71 (60–99)0.95
Height (cm)167 (105–184)168 (155–185)0.87155 (137–176)155 (124–175)0.56
Weight (kg)74.5 (52–94)76.5 (50–98)0.5964 (42–98)64 (43–127)0.94
Table
Table 2. Risk of falling frequencies in% (and absolute) of the sample per gender.
Table 2. Risk of falling frequencies in% (and absolute) of the sample per gender.
GenderGroupRisk of FallingDifference
LowModerateHigh
MaleSouth27% (23)6.67% (6)16.67% (15)χ2 = 4.40, p = 0.111
North23% (21)15.56% (13)11.11% (10)
FemaleSouth34.64% (104)8.50% (26)6.86% (21)χ2 = 3.81, p = 0.149
North30.72% (92)8.17% (25)11.11% (34)
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Souza, M.A.; Goble, D.; Arney, P.; Vieira, E.R.; Silveira-Nunes, G.; Intelangelo, L.; Barbosa, M.A.; Barbosa, A.C. Balance Differences between North and South American Older Adults: A Cross-Sectional, Age and Sex Matched Study. Healthcare 2022, 10, 499. https://doi.org/10.3390/healthcare10030499

AMA Style

Souza MA, Goble D, Arney P, Vieira ER, Silveira-Nunes G, Intelangelo L, Barbosa MA, Barbosa AC. Balance Differences between North and South American Older Adults: A Cross-Sectional, Age and Sex Matched Study. Healthcare. 2022; 10(3):499. https://doi.org/10.3390/healthcare10030499

Chicago/Turabian Style

Souza, Matheus Almeida, Daniel Goble, Paige Arney, Edgar Ramos Vieira, Gabriela Silveira-Nunes, Leonardo Intelangelo, Michelle Almeida Barbosa, and Alexandre Carvalho Barbosa. 2022. "Balance Differences between North and South American Older Adults: A Cross-Sectional, Age and Sex Matched Study" Healthcare 10, no. 3: 499. https://doi.org/10.3390/healthcare10030499

APA Style

Souza, M. A., Goble, D., Arney, P., Vieira, E. R., Silveira-Nunes, G., Intelangelo, L., Barbosa, M. A., & Barbosa, A. C. (2022). Balance Differences between North and South American Older Adults: A Cross-Sectional, Age and Sex Matched Study. Healthcare, 10(3), 499. https://doi.org/10.3390/healthcare10030499

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop