《中国康复理论与实践》 ›› 2026, Vol. 32 ›› Issue (1): 1-12.doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1006-9771.2026.01.001
韩雪娇, 史冀鹏(
), 卫金鹏, 朱天瑞, 徐红旗, 何慕寒
收稿日期:2025-08-07
修回日期:2025-11-05
出版日期:2026-01-25
发布日期:2026-01-28
通讯作者:
史冀鹏(1975-),女,汉族,辽宁抚顺市人,博士,副教授,主要研究方向:运动生理学。E-mail: 作者简介:韩雪娇(2001-),女,汉族,河南焦作市人,硕士研究生,主要研究方向:运动与健康促进。
基金资助:
HAN Xuejiao, SHI Jipeng(
), WEI Jinpeng, ZHU Tianrui, XU Hongqi, HE Muhan
Received:2025-08-07
Revised:2025-11-05
Published:2026-01-25
Online:2026-01-28
Contact:
SHI Jipeng, E-mail: Supported by:摘要:
目的 探究体力活动和平衡能力与残疾之间的关联性,并分析平衡能力在体力活动与残疾关联中的中介作用。
方法 基于2021年至2023年美国国家健康和营养调查(NHANES)数据,构建多变量Logistic回归模型评估体力活动和平衡能力对残疾的独立关系,分四步调整变量。交互效应分析构建含交互项的Logistic回归模型。采用Baron & Kenny三步法检验平衡能力中介作用,计算效应比例。采用Delta方法等评估中介效应显著性,Bootstrap法验证稳健性,设随机种子。多项敏感性分析验证结果。
结果 共纳入3 902例受试者,残疾检出率为17.7%。多因素回归显示,在调整所有协变量后,低中强度体力活动(LIPA) (OR = 0.489, 95%CI 0.380~0.629, P < 0.001)和高强度体力活动(HIPA) (OR = 0.493, 95%CI 0.371~0.656, P < 0.001)均与残疾风险显著降低相关,而平衡能力异常者残疾风险显著升高(OR = 1.579, 95%CI 1.266~1.970, P < 0.001)。交互效应分析表明,体力活动与平衡能力的交互效应均不显著(P > 0.05),但LIPA主效应保持稳健(β = -0.597, SE = 0.221, OR = 0.550, P = 0.007),平衡能力异常仍与残疾风险升高相关(β = 0.577, SE = 0.231, OR = 1.780, P = 0.012)。中介效应分析显示,平衡能力在LIPA与残疾之间发挥稳健的中介作用,中介效应比例为21.1%,间接效应路径a×b显著(P < 0.001),Bootstrap法验证的95%置信区间均未包含0。
结论 体力活动和平衡能力与残疾之间存在显著关联,平衡能力在二者之间可能具有潜在的中介作用。平衡功能可能在残疾风险评估中及干预具有重要价值。
中图分类号:
韩雪娇, 史冀鹏, 卫金鹏, 朱天瑞, 徐红旗, 何慕寒. 体力活动和平衡能力与残疾的关联性研究——基于NHANES的横断面研究[J]. 《中国康复理论与实践》, 2026, 32(1): 1-12.
HAN Xuejiao, SHI Jipeng, WEI Jinpeng, ZHU Tianrui, XU Hongqi, HE Muhan. Association of physical activity and balance ability with disability: a cross-sectional study based on NHANES[J]. Chinese Journal of Rehabilitation Theory and Practice, 2026, 32(1): 1-12.
表1
变量赋值"
| 变量 | 项目内容 | 赋值方式 |
|---|---|---|
| 平衡能力 | 是否完成平衡测试 | 0 = 正常;1 = 异常 |
| 性别 | 性别 | 1 = 男性;2 = 女性 |
| 饮酒史 | 过去的12个月,是否饮酒 | 0 = 否;1 = 是 |
| 吸烟史 | 现在是否吸烟 | 0 = 否;1 = 是 |
| 体力活动 | 体力活动情况 | 0 = NPA;1 = LIPA;2 = HIPA |
| 处方药 | 过去1个月,是否服用处方药 | 0 = 否;1 = 是 |
| 年龄 | 筛查时的年龄 | 原值 |
| 体质量 | 筛查时的体质量 | 原值 |
| 身高 | 筛查时的身高 | 原值 |
| BMI | 筛查时的BMI | 原值 |
| 睡眠 | 日常睡眠时间 | 1 = < 7 h/d;2 = 7~8 h/d;3 = 8~9 h/d;4 = ≥ 9 h/d |
| 久坐 | 日常久坐时间 | 1 = < 180 min/d;2 = 180~360 min/d;3 = 360~540 min/d;4 = ≥ 540 min/d |
| 听力 | 听力情况 | 1 = 极优秀;2 = 优秀;3 = 有一点问题;4 = 中等问题;5 = 大问题;6 = 聋 |
| 胆固醇 | 是否被告知您胆固醇水平高 | 0 = 否;1 = 是 |
| 高血压 | 是否曾被告知患有高血压 | 0 = 否;1 = 是 |
| 糖尿病 | 是否被告知您患有糖尿病 | 0 = 否;1 = 是;2 = 介于之间 |
| 关节炎 | 是否曾被告知患有关节炎 | 0 = 否;1 = 是 |
| 心血管类疾病 | 是否有心血管类疾病 | 0 = 否;1 = 是 |
| 肝脏疾病 | 是否有肝脏疾病 | 0 = 否;1 = 是 |
| 胆囊疾病 | 是否有胆囊疾病 | 0 = 否;1 = 是 |
| 癌症 | 是否有癌症 | 0 = 否;1 = 是 |
| 心理状况 | 心理抑郁程度评分 | 0 = 0~4;1 = 5~9;2 = 10~14;3 = 15~19;4 = 20~27 |
| 残疾 | 是否残疾 | 0 = 否;1 = 是 |
表2
研究对象基线特征及组间比较"
| 变量 | 总体(n = 3902) | 无残疾(n = 3210) | 有残疾(n = 692) | t/χ2值 | P值 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 年龄/岁 | 47.643±14.629 | 47.443±14.587 | 48.574±14.801 | -1.845 | 0.065 | |
| 身高/cm | 167.727±9.903 | 168.126±9.904 | 165.876±9.692 | 5.441 | < 0.001 | |
| 体质量/kg | 82.392±19.952 | 82.026±19.697 | 84.091±21.025 | -2.472 | 0.014 | |
| BMI/(kg·m-²) | 29.257±6.633 | 28.969±6.407 | 30.592±7.456 | -5.860 | < 0.001 | |
| 性别/n(%) | 男 | 1759(45.08) | 1505(46.89) | 254(36.71) | 23.827 | < 0.001 |
| 女 | 2143(54.92) | 1705(53.12) | 438(63.30) | |||
| 体力活动水平/n(%) | NPA | 663(16.99) | 455(14.17) | 208(30.06) | 103.140 | < 0.001 |
| LIPA | 2007(51.44) | 1695(52.80) | 312(45.09) | |||
| HIPA | 1232(31.58) | 1060(33.02) | 172(24.86) | |||
| 平衡能力/n(%) | 正常 | 1931(49.49) | 1697(52.87) | 234(33.82) | 82.654 | < 0.001 |
| 异常 | 1971(50.51) | 1513(47.13) | 458(66.19) | |||
| 慢性病共病/n(%) | ||||||
| 胆固醇 | 否 | 2518(64.53) | 2130(66.36) | 388(56.07) | 26.314 | < 0.001 |
| 是 | 1384(35.47) | 1080(33.65) | 304(43.93) | |||
| 高血压 | 否 | 2754(70.58) | 2353(73.30) | 401(57.95) | 64.632 | < 0.001 |
| 是 | 1148(29.42) | 857(26.70) | 291(42.05) | |||
| 糖尿病 | 否 | 3393(86.96) | 2852(88.85) | 541(78.18) | 72.441 | < 0.001 |
| 是 | 398(10.20) | 266(8.29) | 132(19.08) | |||
| 介于之间 | 111(2.84) | 92(2.89) | 19(2.75) | |||
| 关节炎 | 否 | 2955(75.73) | 2562(79.81) | 393(56.79) | 164.152 | < 0.001 |
| 是 | 947(24.27) | 648(20.19) | 299(43.21) | |||
| 心血管类疾病 | 否 | 3709(95.05) | 3090(96.26) | 619(89.45) | 56.167 | < 0.001 |
| 是 | 193(4.95) | 120(3.74) | 73(10.55) | |||
| 肝脏疾病 | 否 | 3650(93.543) | 3034(94.518) | 616(89.02) | 28.504 | < 0.001 |
| 是 | 252(6.457) | 176(5.482) | 76(10.98) | |||
| 胆囊疾病 | 否 | 3575(91.620) | 2983(92.928) | 592(85.55) | 40.373 | < 0.001 |
| 是 | 327(8.380) | 227(7.072) | 100(14.45) | |||
| 癌症 | 否 | 3533(90.544) | 2935(91.433) | 598(86.42) | 16.734 | < 0.001 |
| 是 | 369(9.456) | 275(8.567) | 94(13.58) | |||
| 心理状况/n(%) | 无 | 2764(70.836) | 2481(77.290) | 283(40.90) | 582.358 | < 0.001 |
| 轻度 | 708(18.145) | 529(16.479) | 179(25.87) | |||
| 中度 | 286(7.330) | 164(5.109) | 122(17.63) | |||
| 重度 | 102(2.614) | 29(0.903) | 73(10.55) | |||
| 极重度 | 42(1.076) | 7(0.218) | 35(5.06) | |||
| 生活方式/n(%) | ||||||
| 饮酒史 | 否 | 1043(26.729) | 812(25.295) | 231(33.38) | 19.003 | < 0.001 |
| 是 | 2859(73.271) | 2398(74.705) | 461(66.62) | |||
| 吸烟史 | 否 | 3219(82.496) | 2751(85.702) | 468(67.63) | 128.741 | < 0.001 |
| 是 | 683(17.504) | 459(14.298) | 224(32.37) | |||
| 处方药 | 否 | 1474(37.776) | 1334(41.556) | 140(20.23) | 110.151 | < 0.001 |
| 是 | 2428(62.224) | 1876(58.444) | 552(79.77) |
表3
体力活动与残疾关联性的多因素Logistic回归分析结果"
| 变量 | 模型1 | 模型2 | 模型3 | 模型4 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 体力活动水平 | ||||
| NPA | 1.000 | 1.000 | 1.000 | 1.000 |
| LIPA〔OR值(95%CI)〕 | 0.403(0.328~0.494) | 0.416(0.340~0.512) | 0.428(0.344~0.532) | 0.489(0.380~0.629) |
| β(SE) | -0.910(0.104) | -0.876(0.105) | -0.849(0.111) | -0.716(0.129) |
| P值 | < 0.001 | < 0.001 | < 0.001 | < 0.001 |
| HIPA〔OR值(95%CI)〕 | 0.355(0.282~0.447) | 0.401(0.317~0.508) | 0.403(0.315~0.516) | 0.493(0.371~0.656) |
| β(SE) | -1.036(0.117) | -0.913(0.120) | -0.908(0.126) | -0.707(0.146) |
| P值 | < 0.001 | < 0.001 | < 0.001 | < 0.001 |
| 模型拟合指标 | ||||
| -2LL | 3555.201 | 3515.629 | 3275.585 | 2590.084 |
| AIC | 3561.201 | 3527.629 | 3303.585 | 2654.084 |
| Pseudo R² | 0.025 | 0.036 | 0.102 | 0.289 |
| LRχ² | 91.948a | 131.520a | 371.565a | 1057.065a |
表4
平衡能力与残疾关联性的多因素Logistic回归分析"
| 变量 | 模型1 | 模型2 | 模型3 | 模型4 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 平衡能力 | 正常 | 1.000 | 1.000 | 1.000 | 1.000 |
| 异常〔OR值(95%CI)〕 | 2.195(1.848~2.607) | 2.393(1.987~2.881) | 2.023(1.667~2.455) | 1.579(1.266~1.970) | |
| β(SE) | 0.786(0.088) | 0.872(0.095) | 0.705(0.099) | 0.457(0.113) | |
| P值 | < 0.001 | < 0.001 | < 0.001 | < 0.001 | |
| 模型拟合指标 | -2LL | 3563.175 | 3503.296 | 3289.575 | 2606.943 |
| AIC | 3567.175 | 3513.296 | 3315.575 | 2668.943 | |
| Pseudo R² | 0.023 | 0.039 | 0.098 | 0.285 | |
| LRχ² | 83.974a | 143.853a | 357.574a | 1040.206a |
表5
体力活动与平衡能力交互效应分析"
| 变量 | β(SE) | OR(95%CI) | P值 |
|---|---|---|---|
| 主效应 | |||
| LIPAᵃ | -0.597(0.221) | 0.550(0.357~0.849) | 0.007 |
| HIPAᵃ | -0.441(0.242) | 0.643(0.400~1.034) | 0.069 |
| 平衡能力异常ᵇ | 0.577(0.231) | 1.780(1.132~2.799) | 0.012 |
| 交互效应 | |||
| LIPA×平衡能力异常 | -0.112(0.271) | 0.894(0.526~1.520) | 0.680 |
| HIPA×平衡能力异常 | -0.381(0.301) | 0.683(0.379~1.231) | 0.205 |
| 交互效应检验 | |||
| LRχ² | 15.25 | 0.002 |
表6
中介效应分析"
| 路径/效应 | LIPA | HIPA | |
|---|---|---|---|
| a路径:体力活动→平衡能力 | β(SE) | -0.364(0.103) | -0.359(0.111) |
| OR(95%CI) | 0.695(0.568~0.850) | 0.699(0.562~0.869) | |
| P值 | < 0.001 | 0.001 | |
| b路径:平衡能力→残疾 | β(SE) | 0.415(0.114) | 0.415(0.114) |
| OR(95%CI) | 1.515(1.212~1.894) | 1.515(1.212~1.894) | |
| P值 | < 0.001 | < 0.001 | |
| c路径:总效应 | β(SE) | -0.716(0.129) | -0.707(0.146) |
| OR(95%CI) | 0.489(0.380~0.629) | 0.493(0.371~0.656) | |
| P值 | < 0.001 | < 0.001 | |
| c'路径:直接效应 | β(SE) | -0.682(0.130) | -0.680(0.146) |
| OR(95%CI) | 0.506(0.392~0.652) | 0.507(0.381~0.675) | |
| P值 | < 0.001 | < 0.001 | |
| 间接效应(a×b) | β(SE)ᵃ | -0.151(0.010) | -0.149(0.022) |
| OR(95%CI) | 0.860(0.843~0.877) | 0.862(0.826~0.899) | |
| Sobel检验P值 | < 0.001 | < 0.001 | |
| Bootstrap95%CIᵇ | -0.295~-0.050 | -0.301~-0.047 | |
| 中介效应比例 | 21.10% | 21.00% |
表7
体力活动对残疾影响的敏感性和稳健型分析表"
| 分析类型 | n | LIPA | HIPA | 模型评价Pseudo R² |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 主分析〔OR值(95%CI)〕 | 3902 | 0.489(0.380~0.629) | 0.493(0.371~0.656) | 0.290 |
| β(SE) | -0.716(0.129)d | -0.707(0.146)d | ||
| 年龄分层 | ||||
| < 45岁〔OR值(95%CI)〕 | 1687 | 0.529(0.364~0.768) | 0.646(0.434~0.963) | 0.045 |
| β(SE) | -0.637(0.190)d | -0.437(0.203)c | ||
| 45~60岁〔OR值(95%CI)〕 | 1031 | 0.394(0.268~0.580) | 0.314(0.197~0.501) | 0.127 |
| β(SE) | -0.931(0.197)d | -1.159(0.239)d | ||
| ≥ 60岁〔OR值(95%CI)〕 | 1184 | 0.376(0.260~0.544) | 0.297(0.192~0.461) | 0.113 |
| β(SE) | -0.978(0.189)d | -1.214(0.224)d | ||
| 性别分层 | ||||
| 男性〔OR值(95%CI)〕 | 1759 | 0.365(0.256~0.521) | 0.353(0.242~0.515) | 0.089 |
| β(SE) | -1.007(0.181)d | -1.042(0.193)d | ||
| 女性〔OR值(95%CI)〕 | 2143 | 0.447(0.340~0.586) | 0.430(0.312~0.594) | 0.089 |
| β(SE) | -0.806(0.139)d | -0.843(0.164)d | ||
| 敏感性分析 | ||||
| 排除BMI极值ᵃ〔OR值(95%CI)〕 | 3137 | 0.414(0.322~0.533) | 0.359(0.271~0.477) | 0.080 |
| β(SE) | -0.882(0.129)d | -1.023(0.144)d | ||
| 低共病分析ᵇ〔OR值(95%CI)〕 | 3301 | 0.414(0.322~0.532) | 0.405(0.307~0.536) | 0.063 |
| β(SE) | -0.882(0.128)d | -0.903(0.142)d |
| [1] | 李锁强, 肖丽, 徐建琳, 等. 中国的残疾统计[J]. 中国统计, 2016(5): 6-9. |
| [2] | 范韫仪, 王一然, 郑晓瑛. 中国老年残疾人口康复服务利用现状及影响因素分析[J]. 中国卫生政策研究, 2022, 15(5): 31-39. |
| [3] | 邱卓英. «国际功能、残疾和健康分类»研究总论[J]. 中国康复理论与实践, 2003, 9(1): 2-5. |
| [4] |
VALENZUELA P L, SACO-LEDO G, MORALES J S, et al. Effects of physical exercise on physical function in older adults in residential care: a systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials[J]. Lancet Healthy Longev, 2023, 4(6): e247-e256.
doi: 10.1016/S2666-7568(23)00057-0 pmid: 37182530 |
| [5] |
DIEBO B G, STROUD S G, SHAH N V, et al. Can we predict imbalance in patients? Analysis of the CDC National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey[J]. J Clin Med, 2023, 12(5): 1943.
doi: 10.3390/jcm12051943 |
| [6] |
KHALILI G, ZARGOUSH M, HUANG K, et al. Exploring trajectories of functional decline and recovery among older adults: a data-driven approach[J]. Sci Rep, 2024, 14(1): 6340.
doi: 10.1038/s41598-024-56606-0 pmid: 38491130 |
| [7] |
LESINSKI M, HORTOBÁGYI T, MUEHLBAUER T, et al. Effects of balance training on balance performance in healthy older adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis[J]. Sports Med, 2015, 45(12): 1721-1738.
doi: 10.1007/s40279-015-0375-y pmid: 26325622 |
| [8] |
FANG M, WANG D, CORESH J, et al. Trends in diabetes treatment and control in US adults, 1999-2018[J]. N Engl J Med, 2021, 384(23): 2219-2228.
doi: 10.1056/NEJMsa2032271 |
| [9] |
AGRAWAL Y, CAREY J P, DELLA SANTINA C C, et al. Disorders of balance and vestibular function in US adults: data from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey, 2001-2004[J]. Arch Intern Med, 2009, 169(10): 938-944.
doi: 10.1001/archinternmed.2009.66 pmid: 19468085 |
| [10] | MIN K B, LEE K J, PARK J B, et al. Lead and cadmium levels and balance and vestibular dysfunction among adult participants in the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) 1999-2004[J]. Environ Health Perspect, 2012, 120(3): 413-417. |
| [11] |
WILSON S J, GARNER J C, LOPRINZI P D. The influence of multiple sensory impairments on functional balance and difficulty with falls among US adults[J]. Prev Med, 2016, 87: 41-46.
doi: S0091-7435(16)30001-9 pmid: 26896633 |
| [12] |
HALL J P, KURTH N K, IPSEN C, et al. Comparing measures of functional difficulty with self-identified disability: implications for health policy[J]. Health Aff (Millwood), 2022, 41(10): 1433-1441.
doi: 10.1377/hlthaff.2022.00395 pmid: 36190890 |
| [13] |
YANG H, LI B, LI H, et al. The independent and joint association between physical activity, sleep duration and daily sitting time with bone mineral density: a real-world study from NHANES 2007-2018[J]. Bone, 2024, 189: 117264.
doi: 10.1016/j.bone.2024.117264 |
| [14] |
KROENKE K, SPITZER R L, WILLIAMS J B W. The PHQ-9: validity of a brief depression severity measure[J]. J Gen Intern Med, 2001, 16(9): 606-613.
doi: 10.1046/j.1525-1497.2001.016009606.x pmid: 11556941 |
| [15] | EMMERICH S D, FRYAR C D, STIERMAN B, et al. Obesity and severe obesity prevalence in adults: United States, August 2021-August 2023[J]. Natl Health Stat Report, 2024(195): 1-10. |
| [16] |
AUAIS M, AHMED T, ALVARADO B, et al. Gender differences in four-year incidence of self-reported and performance-based functional disability: the International Mobility in Aging Study[J]. Arch Gerontol Geriatr, 2019, 82: 266-272.
doi: 10.1016/j.archger.2019.03.002 |
| [17] |
LYNCH D H, PETERSEN C L, FANOUS M M, et al. The relationship between multimorbidity, obesity and functional impairment in older adults[J]. J Am Geriatr Soc, 2022, 70(5): 1442-1449.
doi: 10.1111/jgs.17683 pmid: 35113453 |
| [18] |
SHAH R C, BUCHMAN A S, LEURGANS S, et al. Association of total daily physical activity with disability in community-dwelling older persons: a prospective cohort study[J]. BMC Geriatr, 2012, 12(1): 63.
doi: 10.1186/1471-2318-12-63 |
| [19] |
MINETTO M A, GIANNINI A, MCCONNELL R, et al. Common musculoskeletal disorders in the elderly: the star triad[J]. J Clin Med, 2020, 9(4): 1216.
doi: 10.3390/jcm9041216 |
| [20] |
ESPINOZA S E, ERNST M E, RYAN J, et al. The association between metabolic syndrome, frailty and disability-free survival in healthy community-dwelling older adults[J]. J Nutr Health Aging, 2023, 27(1): 1-9.
doi: 10.1007/s12603-022-1860-2 pmid: 36651481 |
| [21] |
ZHOU J, ZHOU J, FENG L, et al. The associations between depressive symptoms, functional impairment, and quality of life in patients with major depression: undirected and Bayesian network analyses[J]. Psychol Med, 2023, 53(14): 6446-6458.
doi: 10.1017/S0033291722003385 |
| [22] |
BANACK H R, KAUFMAN J S, WACTAWSKI-WENDE J, et al. Investigating and remediating selection bias in geriatrics research: the selection bias toolkit[J]. J Am Geriatr Soc, 2019, 67(9): 1970-1976.
doi: 10.1111/jgs.16022 pmid: 31211407 |
| [23] |
PARK W B, LIM J Y. The association of balance confidence with physical performance and strength in community-dwelling elderly persons[J]. J Korean Geriatr Soc, 2009, 13(4): 222-230.
doi: 10.4235/jkgs.2009.13.4.222 |
| [24] | GURALNIK J M, FERRUCCI L, PIEPER C F, et al. Lower extremity function and subsequent disability: consistency across studies, predictive models, and value of gait speed alone compared with the short physical performance battery[J]. J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci, 2000, 55(4): M221-M231. |
| [25] |
ZHANG S, QIAN G, XU H, et al. Effects of different exercise modalities on balance performance in healthy older adults: a systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials[J]. BMC Geriatr, 2025, 25(1): 570.
doi: 10.1186/s12877-025-06212-0 pmid: 40745584 |
| [26] |
FETER N, SCHAUN G Z, SMITH E C, et al. High-velocity resistance training improves executive function in mobility-limited older adults[J]. Arch Gerontol Geriatr, 2023, 114: 105081.
doi: 10.1016/j.archger.2023.105081 |
| [27] |
STILLMAN C M, UYAR F, HUANG H, et al. Cardiorespiratory fitness is associated with enhanced hippocampal functional connectivity in healthy young adults[J]. Hippocampus, 2018, 28(3): 239-247.
doi: 10.1002/hipo.22827 pmid: 29341303 |
| [28] |
DHAHBI W, BRIKI W, HEISSEL A, et al. Physical activity to counter age-related cognitive decline: benefits of aerobic, resistance, and combined training: a narrative review[J]. Sports Med Open, 2025, 11(1): 56.
doi: 10.1186/s40798-025-00857-2 |
| [29] | BLACKMORE D G, SCHAUMBERG M A, ZIAEI M, et al. Long-term improvement in hippocampal-dependent learning ability in healthy aged individuals following high-intensity interval training[J]. Aging Dis, 2024, 16(3): 1732. |
| [30] |
PATERSON D H, WARBURTON D E. Physical activity and functional limitations in older adults: a systematic review related to Canada's Physical Activity Guidelines[J]. Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act, 2010, 7: 38.
doi: 10.1186/1479-5868-7-38 pmid: 20459782 |
| [31] | REFALO M C, NUCKOLS G, GALPIN A J, et al. Sex differences in absolute and relative changes in muscle size following resistance training in healthy adults: a systematic review with Bayesian meta-analysis[J]. PeerJ, 2025, 13: e19042. |
| [32] |
OWEN K B, CORBETT L, DING D, et al. Gender differences in physical activity and sport participation in adults across 28 European countries between 2005 and 2022[J]. Ann Epidemiol, 2025, 101: 52-57.
doi: 10.1016/j.annepidem.2024.12.011 pmid: 39710014 |
| [33] |
COSWIG V S, BARBALHO M, RAIOL R, et al. Effects of high vs moderate-intensity intermittent training on functionality, resting heart rate and blood pressure of elderly women[J]. J Transl Med, 2020, 18(1): 88.
doi: 10.1186/s12967-020-02261-8 pmid: 32066460 |
| [34] |
KETELHUT S, BENZING V, ZEHNDER C, et al. Effects of exergaming versus endurance training on cardiorespiratory fitness and hemodynamic parameters: a randomized controlled trial[J]. Eur J Appl Physiol, 2025, 125(7): 1817-1830.
doi: 10.1007/s00421-025-05743-z pmid: 40067458 |
| [35] |
MEEUSEN R, DUCLOS M, FOSTER C, et al. Prevention, diagnosis, and treatment of the overtraining syndrome: joint consensus statement of the European College of Sport Science and the American College of Sports Medicine[J]. Med Sci Sports Exerc, 2013, 45(1): 186-205.
doi: 10.1249/MSS.0b013e318279a10a |
| [36] | 中共中央, 国务院. "健康中国2030"规划纲要[EB/OL]. (2016-10-25)[2025-10-20]. http://www.gov.cn/zhengce/2016-10/25/content_5124174.htm. |
| [37] |
WANG L C, YE M Z, XIONG J, et al. Optimal exercise parameters of tai chi for balance performance in older adults: a meta-analysis[J]. J Am Geriatr Soc, 2021, 69(7): 2000-2010.
doi: 10.1111/jgs.v69.7 |
| [38] |
CHEN P J, PENN I W, WEI S H, et al. Augmented reality-assisted training with selected Tai-Chi movements improves balance control and increases lower limb muscle strength in older adults: a prospective randomized trial[J]. J Exerc Sci Fit, 2020, 18(3): 142-147.
doi: 10.1016/j.jesf.2020.05.003 |
| [39] |
FAN X, SOH K G, MUN C Y, et al. Effects of different types of Tai Chi intervention on motor function in older adults: a systematic review[J]. Aging Clin Exp Res, 2025, 37(1): 32.
doi: 10.1007/s40520-024-02894-5 pmid: 39841325 |
| [40] |
SAVITZ D A, WELLENIUS G A. Can cross-sectional studies contribute to causal inference? It depends[J]. Am J Epidemiol, 2023, 192(4): 514-516.
doi: 10.1093/aje/kwac037 |
| [1] | 孟丽君. 残疾儿童康复研究伦理审查的挑战与思考[J]. 《中国康复理论与实践》, 2026, 32(2): 142-150. |
| [2] | 杨小兰, 李凯茹, 张泽惠, 李进毅, 李海燕, 董志伟, 井淇. 我国残联系统康复人才供给水平及影响路径的模糊集定性比较分析[J]. 《中国康复理论与实践》, 2026, 32(2): 233-240. |
| [3] | 谭茗丹, 冯锭瑶, 李咏雪. 头颈癌吞咽障碍患者照料者第三方残疾的研究[J]. 《中国康复理论与实践》, 2025, 31(9): 1032-1037. |
| [4] | 梁斐, 陈西梅, 戚静, 王淑荣, 梁永胜. 残疾大学生功能、职业胜任力与职业发展:基于ICF和RCF[J]. 《中国康复理论与实践》, 2025, 31(8): 922-929. |
| [5] | 李莎, 邱卓英. 智力与发展性残疾儿童言语和语言功能特点及教育课程和康复方案:基于ICF的研究[J]. 《中国康复理论与实践》, 2025, 31(8): 930-938. |
| [6] | 杨亚茹, 邱卓英, 陈迪, 王忠彦, 张萌, 宋桂芸. 运用ICF构建残疾标准的理论架构与方法体系[J]. 《中国康复理论与实践》, 2025, 31(7): 745-754. |
| [7] | 吕雪丽, 杨亚茹, 邱卓英, 王忠彦, 田益凡, 刘叶, 李晨, 陈迪. 基于ICF和ICD-11的中国6种视力残疾相关标准比较研究[J]. 《中国康复理论与实践》, 2025, 31(7): 755-762. |
| [8] | 秦晴, 杨亚茹, 邱卓英, 陈迪, 刘叶, 田益凡, 王忠彦. 基于ICF和ICD-11的中国6种听力残疾相关标准比较研究[J]. 《中国康复理论与实践》, 2025, 31(7): 763-771. |
| [9] | 叶海燕, 杨亚茹, 邱卓英, 王忠彦, 陈迪, 宋桂芸, 王方永, 田益凡, 刘叶. 基于ICF和ICD-11的中国5种肢体残疾相关标准比较研究[J]. 《中国康复理论与实践》, 2025, 31(7): 772-780. |
| [10] | 孙嘉遥, 马春华, 吕军, 唐琪, 邵志民, 胡康宁, 黄昊鹰, 黄爱华. 福利机构成年残疾人照护服务需求分级评估工具研制[J]. 《中国康复理论与实践》, 2025, 31(7): 802-811. |
| [11] | 李莎. 基于ICF构建特殊需求学生适宜发展评价指标体系[J]. 《中国康复理论与实践》, 2025, 31(6): 628-634. |
| [12] | 朱晨晨, 廖思斯, 潘建明, 夏币华, 洪宁杰. 0~3岁发育障碍婴幼儿早期家庭教育与康复:基于ICF的目标设置与服务体系研究[J]. 《中国康复理论与实践》, 2025, 31(6): 635-641. |
| [13] | 邵雪云. 肥胖儿童身体活动与功能和心理-行为健康:政策架构与健康行为干预模式[J]. 《中国康复理论与实践》, 2025, 31(6): 642-649. |
| [14] | 武砀, 张青, 吴佳洺, 贾文蓉, 武爱红, 武剑. 融合教育背景下特殊需要儿童参与身体活动的支持保障系统研究[J]. 《中国康复理论与实践》, 2025, 31(6): 650-657. |
| [15] | 武爱红, 张青, 吴佳洺, 谢俊霞, 武砀. 胜任力导向和功能定向的中小学融合教育教师培训课程体系构建研究[J]. 《中国康复理论与实践》, 2025, 31(5): 539-547. |
| 阅读次数 | ||||||
|
全文 |
|
|||||
|
摘要 |
|
|||||
|
||