The association of foot structure and footwear fit with disability in children and adolescents with Down syndrome

Table 7 Multivariate logistic regression analyses with OxAFQ-C Footwear domain scores as the dependent variable ^a

	OxAFQ-C Footwear^bdomain score
Independent variables	OR (95% CI)^c	Change in NagelkerkeR²	pvalue
Foot structure
Arch Index^d	1.03 (0.89 to 1.18)	0.004	0.712
Hallux valgus (presence)	3.08 (0.23 to 41.79)	0.012	0.399
Lesser toe deformity (presence)	2.72 (0.17 to 43.62)	0.014	0.480
Footwear fit^e
Length (ill-fitting/lower median)^f	0.23 (0.02 to 2.70)	0.061	0.240
Width (ill-fitting/lower median)^f	0.89 (0.11 to 7.15)	0.042	0.915

^aAdjusted for sex, age and body mass index.
^bOxAFQ-C Footwear domain scores were dichotomised where the lowest quartile (item responses: always, very often) was classified as ‘disability’ and the upper three quartiles (item responses: never, rarely and sometimes) were classified as ‘no disability’.
^cOR: Odds ratio.
^dArch Index multiplied by hundred.
^eLogistic regression analyses performed for footwear fit were based on n = 48 due to missing data.
^fIll-fitting: representing the greatest disparity between the participant’s foot and footwear length and width dimensions; expressed as a percentage. The values that defined the lower median (ill-fitting) were as follows: length (shoe 14.3% shorter to 10.8% longer than foot), width (shoe 26.5% to 4.9% narrower than foot).

ISSN: 1757-1146