Association of motor index scores with fall incidence among community-dwelling older people

TLDR: In this article , the fine motor index and gross motor index (GROSSA) scores were used to predict the risk of falling, as well as the specific fall type in community-dwelling older individuals.

Abstract: Abstract Background Several kinds of motor dysfunction have been studied for predicting future fall risk in community-dwelling older individuals. However, no study has tested the ability of the fine motor index (FINEA) and gross motor index (GROSSA) to predict the risk of falling, as well as the specific fall type. Objective We investigated the associations of FINEA/GROSSA scores with fall risk, explained falls, and unexplained falls. Methods A total of 6267 community-dwelling adults aged ≥ 50 years from the Irish Longitudinal Study on Aging (TILDA) cohort were included. First, the associations of FINEA and GROSSA scores with the history of total falls, explained falls and unexplained falls were assessed in a cross-sectional study and further verified in a prospective cohort after 2 years of follow-up by Poisson regression analysis. Results We found that high FINEA and GROSSA scores were positively associated with almost all fall histories (FINEA scores: total falls: adjusted prevalence ratio [aPR] = 1.28, P = 0.009; explained falls: aPR = 1.15, P = 0.231; unexplained falls: aPR = 1.88, P < 0.001; GROSSA scores: total falls: aPR = 1.39, P < 0.001; explained falls: aPR = 1.28, P = 0.012; unexplained falls: aPR = 2.18, P < 0.001) in a cross-sectional study. After 2 years of follow-up, high FINEA scores were associated with an increased incidence of total falls (adjusted rate ratio [aRR] = 1.42, P = 0.016) and explained falls (aRR = 1.51, P = 0.020) but not with unexplained falls (aRR = 1.41, P = 0.209). High GROSSA scores were associated with an increased incidence of unexplained falls (aRR = 1.57, P = 0.041) and were not associated with either total falls (aRR = 1.21, P = 0.129) or explained falls (aRR = 1.07, P = 0.656). Compared with individuals without limitations in either the FINEA or GROSSA, individuals with limitations in both indices had a higher risk of falls, including total falls (aRR = 1.35, P = 0.002), explained falls (aRR = 1.31, P = 0.033) and unexplained falls (aRR = 1.62, P = 0.004). Conclusion FINEA scores were positively associated with accidental falls, while GROSSA scores were positively associated with unexplained falls. The group for whom both measures were impaired showed a significantly higher risk of both explained and unexplained falls. FINEA or GROSSA scores should be investigated further as possible tools to screen for and identify community-dwelling adults at high risk of falling.