Author
Listed:
- Alejandro Rodríguez-Molinero
- César Gálvez-Barrón
- Leire Narvaiza
- Antonio Miñarro
- Jorge Ruiz
- Esther Valldosera
- Natalia Gonzalo
- Thalia Ng
- María Jesús Sanguino
- Antonio Yuste
Abstract
Introduction: Older adults’ perception of their own risk of fall has never been included into screening tools. The goal of this study was to evaluate the predictive validity of questions on subjects’ self-perception of their own risk of fall. Methods: This prospective study was conducted on a probabilistic sample of 772 Spanish community-dwelling older adults, who were followed-up for a one year period. At a baseline visit, subjects were asked about their recent history of falls (question 1: “Have you fallen in the last 6 months?”), as well as on their perception of their own risk of fall by using two questions (question 2: “Do you think you may fall in the next few months?” possible answers: yes/no; question 3: “What is the probability that you fall in the next few months?” possible answers: low/intermediate/high). The follow-up consisted of quarterly telephone calls, where the number of falls occurred in that period was recorded. Results: A short questionnaire built with questions 1 and 3 showed 70% sensitivity (95% CI: 56%-84%), 72% specificity (95% CI: 68%-76%) and 0.74 area under the ROC curve (95% CI: 0.66–0.82) for prediction of repeated falls in the subsequent year. Conclusions: The estimation of one’s own risk of fall has predictive validity for the occurrence of repeated falls in older adults. A short questionnaire including a question on perception of one’s own risk of fall and a question on the recent history of falls had good predictive validity.
Suggested Citation
Alejandro Rodríguez-Molinero & César Gálvez-Barrón & Leire Narvaiza & Antonio Miñarro & Jorge Ruiz & Esther Valldosera & Natalia Gonzalo & Thalia Ng & María Jesús Sanguino & Antonio Yuste, 2017.
"A two-question tool to assess the risk of repeated falls in the elderly,"
PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 12(5), pages 1-12, May.
Handle:
RePEc:plo:pone00:0176703
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0176703
Download full text from publisher
Corrections
All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0176703. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.
If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.
We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .
If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .
Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through
the various RePEc services.