Preclinical mobility limitation outcomes in rehabilitation interventions for middle-aged and older adults population: a scoping review protocol

Introduction

Mobility is defined as the ability to move oneself (independently or by using assistive devices or transportation) around their environment^1–2. Mobility is a key physical ability that influences the quality of life as a strong prognostic indicator of disability³. A mobility limitation is usually the first area in which disability occurs. Twenty-four percent of older Canadians aged 65 to 74 experienced mobility disability, and this percentage increases as they grow older. Forty-one percent of older adults aged 75 to 84 years and 61 percent of those aged 85 years and over experience mobility disability⁴. The trajectory of mobility loss with aging is commonly described as a descending curve with a steeper decline shown late in life³. However, age-related impairments in mobility-associated physiological systems can be compensated by changing the manner or the frequency of doing a mobility task⁵. An overt mobility limitation only manifests when the severity of mobility loss becomes too high to be compensated³. The intermediate stage, which occurs with progressive loss of function and precedes the onset of disability, was referred to as “preclinical disability”⁶, “preclinical mobility disability”⁷, or “preclinical mobility limitation” (PCML)⁸. The concept of preclinical disability was first introduced by Fried and colleagues⁶. They defined it as a functional stage where people can still complete certain tasks but change the frequency or modify the way of doing the tasks. They linked the progressive disability to an iceberg and described the stage of PCML as a submerged portion of the iceberg. Only the tip of the iceberg is visible, representing individuals can no longer compensate successfully for their loss of physical function.

Before significant mobility and functional independence losses, there may be interventions that can improve recovery likelihood and functional levels⁹. Individuals in the PCML stage may represent an optimal group to receive disability prevention interventions, as they are likely to be responsive to altered risk factors¹⁰. In the primary prevention of disability among older adults, intervening at the PCML stage might be the most effective strategy to reduce the burden of disability in this population. However, studies have provided inconclusive results. For example, an RCT study compared older adults with preclinical gait dysfunction in a motor learning program incorporating goal-oriented stepping and walking with those in a standard program employing endurance training by treadmill walking¹¹. Both groups improved walking endurance, but older adults in the motor learning group demonstrated more improvements in mobility performance parameters (such as gait speed and motor skill)¹¹. Yet, Day and colleagues investigated a group of community-dwelling older adults with PCML in a Tai Chi group and seated flexibility exercise group for 24 weeks and found little change in impairments or functional limitations ¹². Many factors may contribute to these conflicting findings, such as tools used to identify the stage of PCML, eligibility criteria for participants, and interventions selected. A preliminary search also showed that the outcomes measuring changes of PCML vary among studies^12–14. Some used self-reported measures, such as the preclinical disability screening tool by Fried et al.¹⁵ or the Preclinical mobility disability scale by Manty et al.⁸, while others debate whether performance-based measures can identify more limitations in physical function than self-report measures¹¹. In addition, the characteristics of the sample recruited (e.g. age, gender, cognitive level, etc.) and the variation in intervention used (e.g. type, frequency, length, intensity and delivery professions, etc.) may also contribute to the variation in results.

However, there was a lack of resource mapping evidence in relation to these concepts, which leads to the uncertainty of whether or not it would be helpful to conduct a systematic review. In addition, determination of the key items required when undertaking a systematic review, such as identifying precise research questions and defining suitable inclusion criteria.

Therefore, synthesizing the evidence currently available in PCML interventions will help determine what these interventions are, what type of interventions are associated with various outcomes and future directions for interventional research. A preliminary search in MEDLINE, the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) Evidence Synthesis, and PROSPERO was conducted. No current or ongoing systematic or scoping reviews on this topic were identified. The purpose of this scoping review is to provide a comprehensive understanding of PCML intervention studies in middle-aged and older adults that have been tested or planned, map how they have been conducted and reported, identify the knowledge gaps in current literature and make recommendations about future research direction in the interventional study in PCML.

Method

The first methodological framework for scoping reviews was developed by Arksey and O’Malley¹⁷. It then further developed over the years and was extended by Levac et al.¹⁸. The proposed scoping review will be conducted in accordance with the JBI methodology for scoping reviews which a working group developed from JBI and the JBI Collaboration (JBIC)^19–20.