Discharge mobility included a range of measures. Standing balance was calculated as the sum of the durations that each of five positions (feet apart, feet together, semi-tandem stance, tandem stance and single-leg stance) could be held without assistance or arm support, with a maximum of 10 seconds ( Guralnik et al 1994), and was also measured with a postural sway test ( Lord et al 2003). Balance while leaning was measured with co-ordinated stability and maximal balance

range ( Lord et al 1996) tests. Sit-to-stand ability was measured by recording the time to complete 5 stands from a 45 cm chair ( Guralnik et al 1994) and coding the level of assistance from another person and arm support needed. Stepping ability was measured using the Hill step test, ie, the

number of steps onto a 7 cm block in 15 seconds ( Hill et al 1996); GDC 0199 JQ1 the alternate step item from the Berg balance scale, which involves alternate placing of the feet onto a 15 cm block ( Berg et al 1992); and a simple low-tech version of the choice stepping reaction time test ( Lord and Fitzpatrick 2001). Gait was assessed as the time taken to stand up, walk 3 m at usual pace, turn around, return, and sit down again (Timed Up and Go Test, Podsiadlo and Richardson 1991), and as the average speed over 4 m ( Guralnik et al

1994). Participants were also asked to rate their balance between excellent and poor. The outcome of interest was inability to perform two mobility tasks – climb a flight of stairs and walk 800 m without assistance – in the three months after discharge from the unit. Each week, in the month following discharge from mafosfamide hospital, participants were telephoned and asked about their ability to perform the two mobility tasks. At the end of the third calendar month they were asked to complete a questionnaire that included this information and return the questionnaire in a reply-paid envelope. If a questionnaire was not returned the participant was telephoned and the information was sought verbally. The latest available measure was used in the analysis. Analyses were conducted using data from the 426 participants for whom some predictor data and all outcome data were available. Missing data for predictor variables (less than 10% for all variables) were imputed using regression. Prior to analysis we chose 15 possible predictors from those described above. This ensured there were at least 10 cases for each predictor (Peduzzi et al 1996). The choice of predictors was based on the range of scores obtained in this sample and their utility in this clinical setting.