The relationship between foot pain, anthropometric variables and footwear among older people

Castro, Alessandra Paiva de; Rebelatto, José Rubens; Aurichio, Thaís Rabiatti

doi:10.1016/j.apergo.2009.05.002

Cited by 55 publications

(55 citation statements)

References 29 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Of these factors, female sex and obesity appear to have the strongest associations with foot pain. Older women are significantly more likely to report foot pain than older men, which may be due to the higher prevalence of structural foot disorders such as hallux valgus and lesser toe deformities [18,19] and the influence of women's footwear, which frequently incorporates an elevated heel and constrictive toe box [20,21]. The association between increased body mass index and foot pain in older people has been attributed to increased mechanical loading of the foot when walking [22] and the contribution of metabolic factors associated with excess fat mass [23].…”

Section: Risk Factorsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Chronic foot pain in older people

Menz

2016

Maturitas

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Foot pain is a common accompaniment of advancing age, affecting at least one in four older people. However, management of foot pain is a largely undervalued aspect of geriatric health care, resulting in many older people needlessly enduring chronic foot pain and related disability. The aim of this review is to provide an overview of (i) the prevalence and risk factors for foot pain, (ii) the impact of foot pain on mobility and quality of life, and (iii) the conservative management of foot pain. The available evidence indicates that although foot pain is common and disabling in older people, conservative interventions such as routine foot care, footwear advice and foot orthoses are effective at reducing foot pain and may also assist in maintaining mobility and independence in this age group.

show abstract

Section: Risk Factorsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Chronic foot pain in older people

Menz

2016

Maturitas

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…88, 101 The authors of 1 study did not report standard deviations or standard errors, 10 and the authors of 5 other studies did not report data on the number of lower extremity injuries (outcome) 1,12,56,72 or the number of participants (sample) 3 with each foot type. Of the corresponding authors of these 6 studies with missing data, only 3 12,56,72 provided the required data when contacted; the remaining 3 studies 1,3,10 were excluded from the meta-analysis.…”

Section: Foot-classification Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Of these studies, Paiva de Castro et al 72 rately, Burns et al 12 incorporated both case-control (retrospective) and prospective study designs, and McManus et al 56 reported the results of their 2-year prospective study separately for each year. Eleven studies either utilized more than 1 method to categorize foot type 12,46,53 or assessed the foot using continuous scales, 5,7,12,26,38,52,63,79,81 and 4 studies reported on more than 1 lower extremity injury using either a dichotomous outcome 24,38,41 or a continuous scale.…”

Section: Meta-analysismentioning

confidence: 99%

Association Between Foot Type and Lower Extremity Injuries: Systematic Literature Review With Meta-analysis

Tong

Kong²

2013

Journal of Orthopaedic & Sports Physical Therapy

145

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

T he human foot is often classified into 3 structural categories: high, normal, and low arch, based on its anatomical alignment 89 and the height of the medial longitudinal arch. 27 Classification in these 3 categories is typically based on cutoff values determined from the distribution of data (standard deviations 65,93,102 or percentiles 15,16 ) from measurements taken on a large population. The interest in such classification is the belief that nonneutral foot morphology, such as a high or low arch (flatfoot), may lead to less than optimal foot function and be associated with the development of lower extremity and low back injuries. 23,28,29,59 A review of the literature provides conflicting evidence on the potential relationship between foot type and lower extremity injuries. Although a number of published reports have found no relationships between nonneutral foot types and lower extremity injuries, 40,94,96,99 the authors of a recent systematic review concluded that both high-and low-arch foot types were associated with runningrelated injuries. 14 The results of this systematic review, 14 which did not include a meta-analysis and effect-size estimates, contrast those of a few qualitative reviews that failed to demonstrate a relationship between foot type and future lower extremity injuries. 4,8,20,70 This lack of consensus in the literature could be attributed, in part, to the variation in the operational definition of foot type among investigators. 4,70 A large variety of methods have been developed to classify the foot based on structure and alignment. These T T OBJECTIVES:To investigate the association between nonneutral foot types (high arch and flatfoot) and lower extremity and low back injuries, and to identify the most appropriate methods to use for foot classification. T T METHODS:A search of 5 electronic databases (PubMed, Embase, CINAHL, SPORTDiscus, and ProQuest Dissertations and Theses), Google Scholar, and the reference lists of included studies was conducted to identify relevant articles. The review included comparative cross-sectional, casecontrol, and prospective studies that reported qualitative/quantitative associations between foot types and lower extremity and back injuries. Quality of the selected studies was evaluated, and data synthesis for the level of association between foot types and injuries was conducted. A randomeffects model was used to pool odds ratio (OR) and standardized mean difference (SMD) results for meta-analysis. T T RESULTS:Twenty-nine studies were included for meta-analysis. A significant association between nonneutral foot types and lower extremity injuries was determined (OR = 1.23; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.11, 1.37; P<.001). Foot posture index (OR = 2.58; 95% CI: 1.33, 5.02; P<.01) and visual/ physical examination (OR = 1.17; 95% CI: 1.06, 1.28; P<.01) were 2 assessment methods using distinct foot-type categories that showed a significant association with lower extremity injuries.

show abstract

“…Therefore with this style of shoe, subjects were more comfortable and produced a more efficient gait when wearing the smallest width and volume of shoe contradicting advice for footwear fit where emphasis is placed on room in the toe box [34]. The results from this study could help understand why people with foot pathology continue to prefer an ill-fitting shoe [6,8] even though the tightness and fit of the shoe may be contributory factor to foot pain and pathology. Developing further research and footwear design work to provide comfortable fashion shoes that do not contribute to foot pain and pathology would improve foot health particularly in females.…”

Section: Comfortmentioning

confidence: 83%

“…Previous research indicates that the most frequent area of discomfort and pain is around the toes, with the population studied having a greater circumference of the metatarsal heads associated to pain [6]. A shoe that is either too loose or too tight can also influence comfort with tissue compression in a snug shoe and slippage or friction in a larger shoe [4].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%