Table 4.
Number of patients receiving each component of the EAP-intervention and results from the performance-based assessment in component 1 (n=144)
| Intervention components | n (%) | Score |
|---|---|---|
| Component 1a | ||
| Assessment of activity limitations | 144 (100) | |
| Assessment with TUGb, median (IQR) | 120 (83) | 11.8 (8.8–17.7) |
| Assessment with 30s-CSTc, median (IQR) | 126 (88) | 7 (0–10) |
| Assessment with AMPSd motor, mean (SD) | 96 (67) | 1.02 (0.79) |
| Assessment with AMPS process, mean (SD) | 0.93 (0.80) | |
| Component 2 | ||
| Rehabilitation plan | 87 (60) | |
| Component 3 | ||
| Follow-up visit | 69 (48) |
Notes:
All patients in the intervention group were assessed with at least one of the performance-based measures in component 1.
Score for TUG is in seconds. A score >12 seconds reflects limitations.35
Score for 30s-CST reflects how many times a person can rise from a chair in 30 seconds. A score <8 reflects limitations.36
Score for AMPS is in logits. A score <1.50 logits in motor ability and >1.00 logits in process ability reflect limitations.33
Abbreviations: AMPS, Assessment of Motor and Process Skills; CST, Chair Stand Test; EAP, Elderly Activity Performance; IQR, interquartile range; TUG, Timed Up and Go.