Adi Toledano-Shubi, Hagit Hel-Or, Hilla Sarig Bahat
{"title":"居家老年人跌倒风险远程评估与面对面评估的可靠性研究。","authors":"Adi Toledano-Shubi, Hagit Hel-Or, Hilla Sarig Bahat","doi":"10.1080/09593985.2024.2367516","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Falls are a leading cause of severe injury and death in older adults. Remote screening of fall risk may prevent falls and hence, advance health and wellness of older adults. While remote health care is becoming a common practice, we question if remote evaluation of fall risk is as reliable as face-to-face (FTF).</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>To assess the inter-tester reliability of synchronized remote and FTF fall risk assessment.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This inter-format, inter-rater reliability study included 48 home dwelling older adults aged 65 and over. Five valid functional and balance tests were conducted: 30 Second Sit-to-Stand (STS), MiniBESTest, Timed up and go (TUG), 4-Meter Walk (4MWT), and Berg Balance Scale (BBS). Instructions were provided via videoconferencing, and two physiotherapists scored performance simultaneously, one remotely, and one in the room. Inter-rater reliability between remote and FTF scores was analyzed using intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC<sub>2,1</sub>), standard error of measurement (SEM), minimal detectable change (MDC<sub>95</sub>) and Bland and Altman analysis.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Excellent ICCs were found for STS, MiniBESTest, TUG, and BBS (0.90-0.99), and moderate for 4MWT (0.74). SEM and MDC<sub>95</sub> values were STS (0.37,1.03 repetitions), MiniBESTest (1.43,3.97 scores), TUG (1.22,3.37 seconds), 4MWT (0.17,0.47 m/second), and BBS (1.79,4.95 scores). The Bland and Altman analysis showed excellent agreement between remote and FTF assessments of the STS. All other tests showed low to moderate agreement. Mean difference ± SD and 95%LOA were as follows: STS (-0.11 ± 0.52), (-1.13,0.91) repetitions, MiniBESTest (0.45 ± 1.98), (-3.43,4.32) scores, TUG (-0.35 ± 1.54), (-3.37,2.67) seconds, 4MWT (-0.08 ± 0.22), (-0.35,0.51) meter/second, and BBS (0.04 ± 2.53), (-4.93,5.01) scores.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The findings support the responsible integration of remote fall risk assessment in clinical practice, enabling large-scale screenings and referrals for early intervention to promote healthy aging and fall prevention.</p>","PeriodicalId":48699,"journal":{"name":"Physiotherapy Theory and Practice","volume":" ","pages":"827-835"},"PeriodicalIF":1.6000,"publicationDate":"2025-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Remote versus face-to-face fall risk assessment in home dwelling older adults: a reliability study.\",\"authors\":\"Adi Toledano-Shubi, Hagit Hel-Or, Hilla Sarig Bahat\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/09593985.2024.2367516\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Falls are a leading cause of severe injury and death in older adults. Remote screening of fall risk may prevent falls and hence, advance health and wellness of older adults. While remote health care is becoming a common practice, we question if remote evaluation of fall risk is as reliable as face-to-face (FTF).</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>To assess the inter-tester reliability of synchronized remote and FTF fall risk assessment.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This inter-format, inter-rater reliability study included 48 home dwelling older adults aged 65 and over. Five valid functional and balance tests were conducted: 30 Second Sit-to-Stand (STS), MiniBESTest, Timed up and go (TUG), 4-Meter Walk (4MWT), and Berg Balance Scale (BBS). Instructions were provided via videoconferencing, and two physiotherapists scored performance simultaneously, one remotely, and one in the room. Inter-rater reliability between remote and FTF scores was analyzed using intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC<sub>2,1</sub>), standard error of measurement (SEM), minimal detectable change (MDC<sub>95</sub>) and Bland and Altman analysis.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Excellent ICCs were found for STS, MiniBESTest, TUG, and BBS (0.90-0.99), and moderate for 4MWT (0.74). SEM and MDC<sub>95</sub> values were STS (0.37,1.03 repetitions), MiniBESTest (1.43,3.97 scores), TUG (1.22,3.37 seconds), 4MWT (0.17,0.47 m/second), and BBS (1.79,4.95 scores). The Bland and Altman analysis showed excellent agreement between remote and FTF assessments of the STS. All other tests showed low to moderate agreement. Mean difference ± SD and 95%LOA were as follows: STS (-0.11 ± 0.52), (-1.13,0.91) repetitions, MiniBESTest (0.45 ± 1.98), (-3.43,4.32) scores, TUG (-0.35 ± 1.54), (-3.37,2.67) seconds, 4MWT (-0.08 ± 0.22), (-0.35,0.51) meter/second, and BBS (0.04 ± 2.53), (-4.93,5.01) scores.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The findings support the responsible integration of remote fall risk assessment in clinical practice, enabling large-scale screenings and referrals for early intervention to promote healthy aging and fall prevention.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":48699,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Physiotherapy Theory and Practice\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"827-835\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-04-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Physiotherapy Theory and Practice\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/09593985.2024.2367516\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2024/6/16 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"REHABILITATION\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Physiotherapy Theory and Practice","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/09593985.2024.2367516","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/6/16 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"REHABILITATION","Score":null,"Total":0}
Remote versus face-to-face fall risk assessment in home dwelling older adults: a reliability study.
Background: Falls are a leading cause of severe injury and death in older adults. Remote screening of fall risk may prevent falls and hence, advance health and wellness of older adults. While remote health care is becoming a common practice, we question if remote evaluation of fall risk is as reliable as face-to-face (FTF).
Objective: To assess the inter-tester reliability of synchronized remote and FTF fall risk assessment.
Methods: This inter-format, inter-rater reliability study included 48 home dwelling older adults aged 65 and over. Five valid functional and balance tests were conducted: 30 Second Sit-to-Stand (STS), MiniBESTest, Timed up and go (TUG), 4-Meter Walk (4MWT), and Berg Balance Scale (BBS). Instructions were provided via videoconferencing, and two physiotherapists scored performance simultaneously, one remotely, and one in the room. Inter-rater reliability between remote and FTF scores was analyzed using intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC2,1), standard error of measurement (SEM), minimal detectable change (MDC95) and Bland and Altman analysis.
Results: Excellent ICCs were found for STS, MiniBESTest, TUG, and BBS (0.90-0.99), and moderate for 4MWT (0.74). SEM and MDC95 values were STS (0.37,1.03 repetitions), MiniBESTest (1.43,3.97 scores), TUG (1.22,3.37 seconds), 4MWT (0.17,0.47 m/second), and BBS (1.79,4.95 scores). The Bland and Altman analysis showed excellent agreement between remote and FTF assessments of the STS. All other tests showed low to moderate agreement. Mean difference ± SD and 95%LOA were as follows: STS (-0.11 ± 0.52), (-1.13,0.91) repetitions, MiniBESTest (0.45 ± 1.98), (-3.43,4.32) scores, TUG (-0.35 ± 1.54), (-3.37,2.67) seconds, 4MWT (-0.08 ± 0.22), (-0.35,0.51) meter/second, and BBS (0.04 ± 2.53), (-4.93,5.01) scores.
Conclusions: The findings support the responsible integration of remote fall risk assessment in clinical practice, enabling large-scale screenings and referrals for early intervention to promote healthy aging and fall prevention.
期刊介绍：
The aim of Physiotherapy Theory and Practice is to provide an international, peer-reviewed forum for the publication, dissemination, and discussion of recent developments and current research in physiotherapy/physical therapy. The journal accepts original quantitative and qualitative research reports, theoretical papers, systematic literature reviews, clinical case reports, and technical clinical notes. Physiotherapy Theory and Practice; promotes post-basic education through reports, reviews, and updates on all aspects of physiotherapy and specialties relating to clinical physiotherapy.
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
京公网安备 11010802042870号
