Phoebe Ullrich1, Christian Werner2, Bastian Abel2, Merit Hummel2, Jürgen M Bauer2, Klaus Hauer2. 1. Geriatrisches Zentrum am Universitätsklinikum Heidelberg, AGAPLESION Bethanien Krankenhaus, Rohrbacher Str. 149, 69126, Heidelberg, Germany. phoebe.ullrich@agaplesion.de. 2. Geriatrisches Zentrum am Universitätsklinikum Heidelberg, AGAPLESION Bethanien Krankenhaus, Rohrbacher Str. 149, 69126, Heidelberg, Germany.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Life-space mobility (LSM), as the extent of mobility within one's environment, is a key for successful aging and has become a relevant concept in gerontology and geriatric research. Adequate assessment instruments are needed to identify older persons with LSM restrictions, and to initiate, adapt or evaluate intervention strategies. OBJECTIVE: To systematically identify, describe and analyze the psychometric properties of LSM questionnaires, with a special focus on their availability in the German language. METHODS: A systematic literature search was conducted in PubMed, PsycINFO, Cochrane Library, CINAHL, and Web of Science. Studies that examined at least one psychometric property of LSM questionnaires published up to August 2021 were included and evaluated based on the consensus-based standards for the selection of health measurement instruments (COSMIN) guidelines. RESULTS: This study included 37 validation studies describing 13 different LSM questionnaires. Methodological quality and comprehensiveness of validations were heterogeneous. Based on comprehensive and high-quality results, four LSM questionnaires stood out: the University of Alabama at Birmingham life-space assessment (UAB-LSA), life-space assessment in persons with cognitive impairment (LSA-CI), interview-based and proxy-based versions of the life-space assessment in institutionalized settings (LSA-IS), all of them available in the German language. CONCLUSION: This systematic review provides a concise overview of available LSM questionnaires and their psychometric properties to facilitate the selection for use in clinical practice and research. The UAB-LSA and LSA-CI for community settings and the interview-based or proxy-based LSA-IS for institutional settings were found to be the most appropriate LSM questionnaires.
BACKGROUND: Life-space mobility (LSM), as the extent of mobility within one's environment, is a key for successful aging and has become a relevant concept in gerontology and geriatric research. Adequate assessment instruments are needed to identify older persons with LSM restrictions, and to initiate, adapt or evaluate intervention strategies. OBJECTIVE: To systematically identify, describe and analyze the psychometric properties of LSM questionnaires, with a special focus on their availability in the German language. METHODS: A systematic literature search was conducted in PubMed, PsycINFO, Cochrane Library, CINAHL, and Web of Science. Studies that examined at least one psychometric property of LSM questionnaires published up to August 2021 were included and evaluated based on the consensus-based standards for the selection of health measurement instruments (COSMIN) guidelines. RESULTS: This study included 37 validation studies describing 13 different LSM questionnaires. Methodological quality and comprehensiveness of validations were heterogeneous. Based on comprehensive and high-quality results, four LSM questionnaires stood out: the University of Alabama at Birmingham life-space assessment (UAB-LSA), life-space assessment in persons with cognitive impairment (LSA-CI), interview-based and proxy-based versions of the life-space assessment in institutionalized settings (LSA-IS), all of them available in the German language. CONCLUSION: This systematic review provides a concise overview of available LSM questionnaires and their psychometric properties to facilitate the selection for use in clinical practice and research. The UAB-LSA and LSA-CI for community settings and the interview-based or proxy-based LSA-IS for institutional settings were found to be the most appropriate LSM questionnaires.
Authors: Matthew J Page; Joanne E McKenzie; Patrick M Bossuyt; Isabelle Boutron; Tammy C Hoffmann; Cynthia D Mulrow; Larissa Shamseer; Jennifer M Tetzlaff; Elie A Akl; Sue E Brennan; Roger Chou; Julie Glanville; Jeremy M Grimshaw; Asbjørn Hróbjartsson; Manoj M Lalu; Tianjing Li; Elizabeth W Loder; Evan Mayo-Wilson; Steve McDonald; Luke A McGuinness; Lesley A Stewart; James Thomas; Andrea C Tricco; Vivian A Welch; Penny Whiting; David Moher Journal: BMJ Date: 2021-03-29