↓ Skip to main content

Assessing the Relationship between Vitamin D Status and Impairments in Cognitive and Physical Performance in Older Adults Using a Dual Task Physical Performance Test.

Overview of attention for article published in The Journal of Prevention of Alzheimer's Disease, January 2016
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Readers on

mendeley
58 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Article details
Title
Assessing the Relationship between Vitamin D Status and Impairments in Cognitive and Physical Performance in Older Adults Using a Dual Task Physical Performance Test.
Published in
The Journal of Prevention of Alzheimer's Disease, January 2016
DOI 10.14283/jpad.2016.114
Pubmed ID
Authors
Abstract

Vitamin D deficiency has been associated with an increased risk of falls in older adults. Several studies have demonstrated an association between vitamin D deficiency and gait and cognitive impairments, which are two risk factors for falls in the elderly. There is lack of research about the role of vitamin D in cognitive function in the context of mobility. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the association between vitamin D status with the age-related changes in mobility through higher order cognitive function using a dual task physical performance test. Cross-sectional. Community-dwelling older adult population located in Miami, Fl. Healthy participants over the age of 55 (n=97) who participated in the parent interventional study. Participants completed assessments that included serum levels of vitamin D, surveys, and dual task physical performance tests. Spearman's correlations, independent t-tests, repeated measures ANOVAs and multiple logistic regressions were used to examine the relationship between vitamin D insufficiency (25-hydroxyvitamin D <30 ng/ml) and sufficiency (≥30 ng/ml) and dual task physical performance variables. The significance level was set at α=0.05. There were no significant associations between vitamin D insufficiency and gait velocity during either task. Using Spearman correlations, slower single (P=0.011) and dual task counting rates (P=0.006) were significantly associated with vitamin D insufficiency. Independent t-tests showed dual and single task counting rates were significantly lower in the vitamin D insufficient group compared to the sufficient group (P=0.018 and P=0.028, respectively). The results for the ANOVAs indicated that velocities and counting rates were not significantly different by vitamin D status (Wilk's Lambda =0.999; F (1, 95) =.11, P=.740) (Wilk's Lambda =.999, F(1,95)=.13, P=.718). Vitamin D status was not significantly associated with dual task physical performance (defined as the difference in dual and single task) in gait velocity (OR=1.00, 95% CI: 0.98; 1.02, P=0.772) and counting rate (OR=1.684, 95% CI: 0.15; 19.57, P=0.677), when controlling for confounders. Since counting backward is a mental tracking task, which is a component of executive function, our results suggest a relationship between vitamin D insufficiency and executive dysfunction. Executive dysfunction has been previously associated with fall risks in the elderly, and it could be a possible mediator between vitamin D and falls. Our data suggest that cognition may play a significant role in vitamin D's influence on falls, while motor function may play a lesser role.

Login to access the Attention Digest and the Sentiment Analysis related to this output.

Timeline Attention over time Attention Score history
Login to access the full charts related to this output.
Activity
Login to access the full charts related to this output.
X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley demographics

Mendeley demographics

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 58 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Login to view Mendeley reader trends over time.

Geographical breakdown

Geographical breakdown
Country Count As %
Unknown 58 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status
Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 10 17%
Student > Master 10 17%
Student > Bachelor 5 9%
Lecturer 2 3%
Researcher 2 3%
Other 5 9%
Unknown 24 41%
Readers by discipline
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 8 14%
Psychology 6 10%
Nursing and Health Professions 5 9%
Sports and Recreations 4 7%
Neuroscience 4 7%
Other 2 3%
Unknown 29 50%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 23 July 2019.
All research outputs
#31,228,352
of 34,411,289 outputs
Outputs from The Journal of Prevention of Alzheimer's Disease
#1,070
of 1,104 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#392,968
of 446,410 outputs
Outputs of similar age from The Journal of Prevention of Alzheimer's Disease
#18
of 20 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 34,411,289 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,104 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 22.5. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 446,410 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 20 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.