Agreement and participants’ preferences comparing: self-rated falls risk questionnaire (FRQ) and activities-specific balance confidence (ABC) scale in community-dwelling older adults using the Bland–Altman method
{"title":"Agreement and participants’ preferences comparing: self-rated falls risk questionnaire (FRQ) and activities-specific balance confidence (ABC) scale in community-dwelling older adults using the Bland–Altman method","authors":"H. Kooshiar, J. Macdermid, D. Walton, R. Grewal","doi":"10.1108/qaoa-03-2022-0020","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\nPurpose\nScreening for fall risks is an important part of fall and fracture prevention. This study aims to investigate cross-sectional inter-instrumental agreement and participants’ preferences of the self-rated Falls Risk Questionnaire (FRQ) and Activities Specific Balance Confidence 6 items (ABC-6). This study also aimed to compare FRQ and ABC-6 scores in older adults with and without a history of falls.\n\n\nDesign/methodology/approach\nThrough an online and snowball sampling survey, 114 respondents were recruited from six countries. Respondents were asked to perform FRQ and ABC-6 surveys.\n\n\nFindings\nThe mean respondent age was 67 years, and 44.8% reported falls in the past year. The mean of rescored FRQ and ABC-6 scores were 68.6% and 66.2%, respectively. The FRQ and ABC-6 scores for fallers were lower than non-fallers. Bland and Altman’s method indicated the mean −2.6 and two standard deviations 20.9 differences between ABC-6 and FRQ, which means an overall agreement between these tools. Most of the respondents, 36% had no preference between ABC-6 and FRQ, 34% preferred none, 21% preferred the ABC-6 and 9% preferred the FRQ for screening future falls risk.\n\n\nOriginality/value\nBoth ABC-6 and FRQ can distinguish between fallers and non-fallers, and findings of this study can be used to support the use of the FRQ for falls screening in older adults.\n","PeriodicalId":44916,"journal":{"name":"Quality in Ageing and Older Adults","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.8000,"publicationDate":"2022-10-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Quality in Ageing and Older Adults","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1108/qaoa-03-2022-0020","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"GERONTOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Purpose
Screening for fall risks is an important part of fall and fracture prevention. This study aims to investigate cross-sectional inter-instrumental agreement and participants’ preferences of the self-rated Falls Risk Questionnaire (FRQ) and Activities Specific Balance Confidence 6 items (ABC-6). This study also aimed to compare FRQ and ABC-6 scores in older adults with and without a history of falls.
Design/methodology/approach
Through an online and snowball sampling survey, 114 respondents were recruited from six countries. Respondents were asked to perform FRQ and ABC-6 surveys.
Findings
The mean respondent age was 67 years, and 44.8% reported falls in the past year. The mean of rescored FRQ and ABC-6 scores were 68.6% and 66.2%, respectively. The FRQ and ABC-6 scores for fallers were lower than non-fallers. Bland and Altman’s method indicated the mean −2.6 and two standard deviations 20.9 differences between ABC-6 and FRQ, which means an overall agreement between these tools. Most of the respondents, 36% had no preference between ABC-6 and FRQ, 34% preferred none, 21% preferred the ABC-6 and 9% preferred the FRQ for screening future falls risk.
Originality/value
Both ABC-6 and FRQ can distinguish between fallers and non-fallers, and findings of this study can be used to support the use of the FRQ for falls screening in older adults.