@article{ref1,
title="Comparison of alternative falls data collection methods in the Prevention of Falls Injury Trial (PreFIT)",
journal="Journal of clinical epidemiology",
year="2019",
author="Griffin, James and Lall, Ranjit and Bruce, Julie and Withers, Emma and Finnegan, Susanne and Lamb, Sarah E.",
volume="106",
number="",
pages="32-40",
abstract="BACKGROUND: Prospective, monthly diaries are recommended for collecting falls data but are burdensome and expensive. <br><br>OBJECTIVE: To compare characteristics of fallers and estimates of fall rates by method of data collection. <br><br>DESIGN: and Setting: A methodology study nested within a large cluster RCT. We randomised 9803 older adults from 63 general practices across England to receive one of three fall prevention interventions. Participants provided a retrospective report of falls in postal questionnaires mailed every four months. A separate randomisation allocated participants to receive prospective monthly falls diaries for one simultaneous four month period. <br><br>RESULTS: Falls diaries were returned by 7762/9375 (83%); of which 6306/9375 (67%) participants reported the same number of falls on both data sources. Diary non-responders were older and had poorer levels of physical and mental health. Analysis of time-points where both data sources were available showed the falls rate on diaries was consistently higher than on the questionnaire (mean rate: 0.16 v 0.12 falls per person month observation). Diary allocation was associated with a higher rate of withdrawal from the main trial. <br><br>CONCLUSIONS: Diary completion was associated with sample attrition. We found on average a 32% difference in falls rates between the two data sources. Retrospective and prospective falls data are not consistently reported when collected simultaneously.<br><br>Copyright © 2018. Published by Elsevier Inc.<p /> <p>Language: en</p>",
language="en",
issn="0895-4356",
doi="10.1016/j.jclinepi.2018.09.006",
url="http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2018.09.006"
}