Author:
Mayo Nancy E.,Mate Kedar K. V.
Abstract
AbstractThis chapter provides an overview of the evidence linking mobility to quality of life (QoL). The findings showed that the operationalization of QoL varied across studies covering measures of physical or mental health, general health perception, life satisfaction, participation, illness intrusiveness, health-related QoL (HRQL) and global quality of life. These outcomes are sometimes single items or uni-dimensional constructs and sometimes profile measures, rendering the interpretation of findings in our context difficult. This complexity led to a revelation that one could think of QOL of the person differently from the QoL of the body. QoL of the person is best reflected through global QOL measures including those of life satisfaction whereas QoL of the body is reflected in outcomes related to aspects of function including physical, emotional, or psychological impairments, activity limitations and participation restrictions. This chapter will focus on the general construct of mobility, which is considered an activity limitation, and on the causes of limited mobility, impairments of structures and functions needed for mobility. A distinction is made between the between the person’s QoL and the body’s QoL. While the person’s QOL is best self-expressed, the body’s QOL could be monitored in real-time with the assistance of a growing portfolio of personal, wearable technologies. The chapter ends with thoughts about how QoL of the body, and especially mobility, could be monitored and what that future may look like.
Publisher
Springer International Publishing
Reference74 articles.
1. Webber SC, Porter MM, Menec VH. Mobility in older adults: a comprehensive framework. Gerontologist. 2010 Aug;50(4):443–50.
2. WHO. World Health Organization. International classification of functioning, disability and health. 2nd ed. Geneva; 2001.
3. Mayo NE, Wood-Dauphinee S, Cote R, Durcan L, Carlton J. Activity, participation, and quality of life six months post-stroke. Arch Phys Med Rehab. 2002;83:1035–42.
4. Mate KK, Kuspinar A, Ahmed S, Mayo NE. Comparison between common performance-based tests and self-reports of physical function in people with multiple sclerosis: does sex or gender matter? Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2019 May;100(5):865–73.
5. Loechte N, Von BT, Haux R. Mobility parameters in health applications–a literature review. Stud Health Technol Inform. 2014;205:523–7.