4.6 Article

Evaluation of the Falls Telephone: An Automated System for Enduring Assessment of Falls

期刊

JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN GERIATRICS SOCIETY
卷 59, 期 2, 页码 340-344

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/j.1532-5415.2010.03263.x

关键词

accidental falls; data collection; sensitivity and specificity; evaluation

资金

  1. Pfizer (Capelle aan den Ijssel, the Netherlands)
  2. ASK Community Systems (Rotterdam, the Netherlands)
  3. Stichting NutsOhra
  4. Stichting Porticus
  5. National Parkinson Foundation (NPF)
  6. NWO [016.076.352]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

OBJECTIVES To evaluate the reliability and user experiences of an automated telephone system to monitor falls during a prolonged period of time. DESIGN Prospective cohort study. SETTING Four neurological outpatient clinics in the Netherlands. PARTICIPANTS One hundred nineteen community-dwelling people with Parkinson's disease without dementia, because falls are common in this population. MEASUREMENTS Clinical and demographic data were obtained. The Falls Telephone is a computerized telephone system through which participants can enter the number of falls during a particular period. During a follow-up of 1 to 40 weekly calls, 2,465 calls were made. In total, 173 no-fall entries and 115 fall entries were verified using personal telephone interviews. User experiences were evaluated in 90 of the 119 participants using structured telephone interviews. RESULTS All no-fall entries and 78% of fall entries were confirmed to be correct. Sensitivity to detect falls was 100%, and specificity was 87%. Users regarded the Falls Telephone as a convenient tool to monitor falls. CONCLUSION The Falls Telephone is a convenient and reliable instrument to monitor falls. The automated system has high specificity, obviating the need for time-consuming personal follow-up calls in the majority of nonfallers. As such, the Falls Telephone lends itself well to data collection in large trials with prolonged follow-up in participants with Parkinson's disease.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据