IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0239837.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Stepping-forward affordance perception test cut-offs: Red-flags to identify community-dwelling older adults at high risk of falling and of recurrent falling

Author

Listed:
  • Catarina Pereira
  • Jorge Bravo
  • Guida Veiga
  • José Marmeleira
  • Felismina Mendes
  • Gabriela Almeida

Abstract

The stepping-forward affordance perception test (SF-APT) fills an important gap within the screening of falls risk factors by considering the perception of affordances. The test showed to be a valid instrument for community-dwelling older adults falls risk assessment. The present study aimed to distinguish and test the key outcomes of the SF-APT usable for falls risk assessment in community-dwelling older adults to determine the respective cut-offs. This cross-sectional study enrolled 347 participants (73.1 ± 6.2 years; non-fallers: 57.9%; fallers: 42.1%; recurrent-fallers: 17.9%). Falls occurrence and SF-APT outcomes were assessed. Analyses were performed using multivariate binary logistic regression analysis and receiver operating characteristic (ROC). The area under the ROC curve was computed (AUC) for each built model explaining falling or recurrent falling. Results distinguished the Estimated stepping-forward, and Absolute-error in interaction with Error-tendency as the SF-APT key outcomes for falls risk assessment [AUCfalling: 0.665 (CI 95%: 0.608–0.723); AUCfalling recurrently: 0.728 (CI 95%: 0.655–0.797)]. Computed cut-offs’ analysis showed that (i) a boundary stepping-forward estimation >58 cm plus an underestimation bias >5 cm (>42nd percentile) avoid older adults to be recurrent-fallers, and (ii) a boundary stepping-forward estimation >62 cm plus an underestimation bias >6 cm (>54th percentile) avoid older adults to be fallers. In conclusion, results suggest that SF-APT is a valuable tool for falls risk assessment in community-dwelling older adults. Interventions targeting the prevention of falls should consider the above key outcomes and the respective cut-offs as alert red-flags.

Suggested Citation

  • Catarina Pereira & Jorge Bravo & Guida Veiga & José Marmeleira & Felismina Mendes & Gabriela Almeida, 2020. "Stepping-forward affordance perception test cut-offs: Red-flags to identify community-dwelling older adults at high risk of falling and of recurrent falling," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(10), pages 1-11, October.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0239837
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0239837
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0239837
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0239837&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0239837?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:pone00:0239837. 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.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.