Citation

Teister CJ, Chocano-Bedoya PO, Orav EJ, Dawson-Hughes B, Meyer U, Meyer OW, Freystaetter G, Gagesch M, Rizzoli R, Egli A, Theiler R, Kanis JA, Bischoff-Ferrari HA. Am. J. Epidemiol. 2018; 187(10): 2243-2251.

Affiliation

University Clinic for Acute Geriatric Care, City Hospital Waid, Zurich, Switzerland.

Copyright

(Copyright © 2018, Oxford University Press)

DOI

10.1093/aje/kwy113

PMID

29912266

Abstract

There is no consensus on most reliable falls ascertainment method. Therefore, we investigated which method captures most falls among pre-frail and frail seniors from two randomized controlled trials conducted in Zurich, Switzerland, a 18-month trial (2009-2010) including 200 community-dwelling pre-frail seniors with a prior fall and a 12-month trial (2005-2008) including 173 frail seniors with acute hip fracture. Both included the same fall ascertainment methods: monthly active-asking, daily self-report diary, and a call-in hotline. We compared number of falls reported and estimated overall and positive percent agreement between methods. Pre-frail seniors reported 499 falls (rate = 2.5/year) and frail seniors reported 205 falls (rate = 1.4/year). Most falls were reported by active-asking: 81% of falls in pre-frail, and 78% in frail seniors. Among pre-frail seniors, diaries captured additional 19% falls, while hotline added none. Among frail seniors, hotline added 16% falls, while diaries added 6%. The positive percent agreement between active-asking and diary was 100% among pre-frail and 88% among frail seniors. While monthly active-asking captures most falls in both groups, this method alone missed 19% of falls in pre-frail and 22% in frail seniors. Thus, a combination of active-asking and diaries for pre-frail, and active-asking and the hotline for frail seniors is warranted.

Language: en