Journal of the American Medical Directors Association · 2020
A Single Question as a Screening Tool to Assess Fear of Falling in Young-Old Community-Dwelling Persons.
СтатьяПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Belloni Giulia, Büla Christophe, Santos-Eggimann Brigitte, Henchoz Yves, Seematter-Bagnoud Laurence
Аннотация
OBJECTIVES: Fear of falling (FOF) is common in older persons and related to negative outcomes. This study aimed to investigate the relationship between 2 FOF measures: the Falls Efficacy Scale-International (FES-I) and the single question on FOF and activity restriction (SQ-FAR). Factors associated with disagreement between the 2 measures were further examined.
DESIGN: Cross-sectional study.
SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: Participants (N = 1359) were community-dwelling persons aged 65 to 70 years who were enrolled in the Lausanne cohort 65+.
METHODS: Data included demographic, functional, cognitive, affective, and health status. FOF was measured with FES-I and the 3-level SQ-FAR (no FOF, FOF without activity restriction (AR, FOF with AR). FES-I concern about falling was categorized as low (score 16-19), moderate (score 20-27), and high (score 28-64).
RESULTS: Weighted agreement between the FES-I and the SQ-FAR was 87.8% (Kappa = 0.57). Using the FES-I as gold standard, the performance of SQ-FAR was good (specificity 86%; sensitivity 74%, negative predicting value 89%, positive predicting value 69%). Among participants with moderate/high FOF according to FES-I, male sex (P = .011) and the absence of previous falls (P < .001) were associated with disagreement between the 2 tools. Among participants with low FOF, female sex (P = .005), falls history (P < .001), and pre-frailty/frailty status (P = .050) were associated with disagreement.
CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS: The SQ-FAR has a moderate agreement with FES-I and might be used as a screening tool. The results also may help design a step-by-step strategy to evaluate and address FOF in the clinical setting.
DESIGN: Cross-sectional study.
SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: Participants (N = 1359) were community-dwelling persons aged 65 to 70 years who were enrolled in the Lausanne cohort 65+.
METHODS: Data included demographic, functional, cognitive, affective, and health status. FOF was measured with FES-I and the 3-level SQ-FAR (no FOF, FOF without activity restriction (AR, FOF with AR). FES-I concern about falling was categorized as low (score 16-19), moderate (score 20-27), and high (score 28-64).
RESULTS: Weighted agreement between the FES-I and the SQ-FAR was 87.8% (Kappa = 0.57). Using the FES-I as gold standard, the performance of SQ-FAR was good (specificity 86%; sensitivity 74%, negative predicting value 89%, positive predicting value 69%). Among participants with moderate/high FOF according to FES-I, male sex (P = .011) and the absence of previous falls (P < .001) were associated with disagreement between the 2 tools. Among participants with low FOF, female sex (P = .005), falls history (P < .001), and pre-frailty/frailty status (P = .050) were associated with disagreement.
CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS: The SQ-FAR has a moderate agreement with FES-I and might be used as a screening tool. The results also may help design a step-by-step strategy to evaluate and address FOF in the clinical setting.