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

IF 0.8 Q4 GERONTOLOGY Quality in Ageing and Older Adults Pub Date : 2022-10-05 DOI:10.1108/qaoa-03-2022-0020
H. Kooshiar, J. Macdermid, D. Walton, R. Grewal
{"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.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
一致性和参与者偏好比较:社区老年人跌倒风险自评问卷(FRQ)和活动特异性平衡信心量表(ABC)使用Bland–Altman方法
目的跌倒风险筛查是预防跌倒和骨折的重要组成部分。本研究旨在调查自评跌倒风险问卷(FRQ)和特定活动平衡置信度6项(ABC-6)的横断面工具间一致性和参与者的偏好。这项研究还旨在比较有和没有跌倒史的老年人的FRQ和ABC-6评分。设计/方法/方法通过在线和滚雪球抽样调查,从六个国家招募了114名受访者。受访者被要求进行FRQ和ABC-6调查。调查结果受访者的平均年龄为67岁,44.8%的人表示在过去一年中有所下降。FRQ和ABC-6评分的平均值分别为68.6%和66.2%。跌倒者的FRQ和ABC-6得分低于非跌倒者。Bland和Altman的方法表明ABC-6和FRQ之间的平均值为-2.6,两个标准差为20.9,这意味着这些工具之间的总体一致性。在大多数受访者中,36%的人对ABC-6和FRQ没有偏好,34%的人不喜欢,21%的人喜欢ABC-6,9%的人喜欢FRQ来筛查未来的跌倒风险。原创性/价值ABC-6和FRQ都可以区分跌倒者和非跌倒者,本研究的结果可用于支持FRQ在老年人跌倒筛查中的应用。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
2.30
自引率
6.70%
发文量
17
期刊最新文献
Involving older adults and unpaid carers in the research cycle: reflections on implementing the UK national standards for public involvement into practice The relationship between older adults’ perceptions of ageing and depression: a systematic review Participatory action research and empowerment of nursing home residents Cognitive functioning and life satisfaction as predictors of subjective health complaints in elderly people Editorial: Recognising new partners and activities in older peoples’ care but also potential burdens in new forms of care and research
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1