4.5 Article

Defining a fall and reasons for falling: Comparisons among the views of seniors, health care providers, and the research literature

期刊

GERONTOLOGIST
卷 46, 期 3, 页码 367-376

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS INC
DOI: 10.1093/geront/46.3.367

关键词

falls; definition; risk factors; reasons for falling; community; survey

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Purpose: The purpose of this study was (a) to obtain information about the perceptions held by seniors and health care providers concerning what constitutes a fall and potential reasons for failing, and (b) to compare these perceptions to the research literature. Design and Methods: As part of a larger telephone survey, interviewers asked 477 community-dwelling seniors to define a fall and to provide reasons for failing. In addition, we interviewed 31 health care providers from the community on the same topics. In order to capture patterns in conceptualized thinking, we used content analysis to develop codes and categories for a fall definition and reasons for falling. We reviewed selected articles in order to obtain a comprehensive overview of fall definitions currently used in the research and prevention literature. Results: A fall had different meanings for different groups. Seniors and health care providers focused mainly on antecedents and consequences of falling, whereas researchers described the fall event itself. There were substantial differences between the reasons for falling as reported by seniors and the risk factors as identified in the research literature. Implications: If not provided with an appropriate definition, seniors can interpret the meaning of a fall in many different ways. This has the potential to reduce the validity in studies comparing fallers to nonfallers. Research reports and prevention programs should always provide an operational definition of a fall. In communication between health care providers and seniors, an appropriate definition increases the possibility for early detection of seniors in greater need of care and services.

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

4.5
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