Author(s): SEBASTIAO, E., BAKARE, J., SIQUEIRA, V., Institution: UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS URBANA-CHAMPAIGN, Country: UNITED STATES, Abstract-ID: 375

INTRODUCTION:
Mobility limitation (ML) is highly prevalent among older adults (OAs), and it has been associated with increased fall risk, hospitalization, a decreased quality of life, and even mortality. In addition, ML has been associated with low levels of physical activity (PA) and high amounts of sedentary behavior (SB) in community-dwelling OAs. However, there are a paucity of data on ML, physical activity and sedentary behavior in OAs living in community dwelling facilities such as Continuing Care Retirement Communities (CCRC). This study examined differences in PA and SB in OAs living in a CCRC as a function of risk for ML.
METHODS:
One hundred OAs (84.7±6.3 years; 27.2±6.8 kg/m2; 70% female) were recruited from a CCRC in the United States. Risk for ML was determined based on scores from the Short Physical Performance Battery (SPPB). OAs with a score <10 in the SPPB were classified as high risk for ML (HRML), while those with a score ≥10 were classified as low risk for ML (LRML). PA was assessed using the Physical Activity Scale for The Elderly (PASE) and expressed as a score. SB was assessed using a questionnaire developed for OAs, in which time spent in non-screen- and screen-related activities were computed and expressed as sedentary time (ST) in minutes. Data were analyzed using descriptive and inferential statistics. As the dependent variables were not normal distributed, the comparison between LRML and HRML was conducted using Mann-Whitney U test with significance set at P<0.05.
RESULTS:
Based on the SPPB scores of the sample, 59% of OAs were classified as HRML. Significant differences between groups were observed for total PA (LRML 67.1±41.8 vs HRML 49.2±40.5; P=0.012), leisure PA (LRML 30.5±25.1 vs HRML 21.2±23.5; P=0.035), total ST (LRML 645.8±209.6 vs HRML 567.0±290.8; P=0.007) and non-screen ST (LRML 447.1±182.7 vs HRML 350.0±164.8; P= 0.002). Groups with different risk for mobility limitation were similar for household PA (LRML 26.6±19.0 vs HRML 20.8±20.7; P=0.097), work-related PA (LRML 10.0±20.5 vs HRML 7.2±14.9; P=0.533), and screen ST (LRML 198.8±89.1 vs HRML 217.0±179.5; P=0.681).
CONCLUSION:
Our findings suggest that OAs living in a CCRC classified as LRML present with significant higher total and leisure time PA, and significant less total and non-screen ST compared with their OAs counterpart classified as HRML. With the aging process, the chances of ML increases in OAs due several reasons including but not limited to motor dysfunctions, impaired balance, decrease muscular strength and functional capacity. To this end, given the well-known benefits of PA, interventions focusing on increasing PA and reducing ST among OAs are important to help counteract functional and physiological alterations occurring during the aging process that may lead to ML.