Giulia Belloni1, Christophe Büla2, Brigitte Santos-Eggimann3, Yves Henchoz3, Laurence Seematter-Bagnoud4. 1. Service of Geriatric Medicine and Geriatric Rehabilitation, University of Lausanne Hospital Center, Lausanne, Switzerland; Specialization School in Geriatrics, University of Milan, Milan, Italy. Electronic address: giuliabelloni2@gmail.com. 2. Service of Geriatric Medicine and Geriatric Rehabilitation, University of Lausanne Hospital Center, Lausanne, Switzerland. 3. Health Services Unit, Center for Primary Care and Public Health (Unisanté), University of Lausanne, Lausanne, Switzerland. 4. Service of Geriatric Medicine and Geriatric Rehabilitation, University of Lausanne Hospital Center, Lausanne, Switzerland; Health Services Unit, Center for Primary Care and Public Health (Unisanté), University of Lausanne, Lausanne, Switzerland.
Abstract
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.
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.
Authors: Roope Jaatinen; Tiina Luukkaala; Markus T Hongisto; Minna A Kujala; Maria S Nuotio Journal: Aging Clin Exp Res Date: 2022-06-21 Impact factor: 4.481