4.6 Article Proceedings Paper

The identification of seniors at risk screening tool: Further evidence of concurrent and predictive validity

期刊

JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN GERIATRICS SOCIETY
卷 52, 期 2, 页码 290-296

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/j.1532-5415.2004.52073.x

关键词

screening; elderly; emergency department; functional impairment; depression

向作者/读者索取更多资源

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the validity of the Identification of Seniors at Risk (ISAR) screening tool for detecting severe functional impairment and depression and predicting increased depressive symptoms and increased utilization of health services. SETTING: Four university-affiliated hospitals in Montreal. DESIGN: Data from two previous studies were available: Study 1, in which the ISAR scale was developed (n=1,122), and Study 2, in which it was used to identify patients for a randomized trial of a nursing intervention (n=1,889 with administrative data, of which 520 also had clinical data). PARTICIPANTS: Patients aged 65 and older who were to be released from an emergency department (ED). MEASUREMENTS: Baseline validation criteria included premorbid functional status in both studies and depression in Study 2 only. Increase in depressive symptoms at 4-month follow-up was assessed in Study 2. Information on health services utilization during the 5 months after the ED visit (repeat ED visits and hospitalization in both studies, visits to community health centers in Study 2) was available by linkage with administrative databases. RESULTS: Estimates of the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) for concurrent validity of the ISAR scale for severe functional impairment and depression ranged from 0.65 to 0.86. Estimates of the AUC for predictive validity for increased depressive symptoms and high utilization of health services ranged from 0.61 to 0.71. CONCLUSION: The ISAR scale has acceptable to excellent concurrent and predictive validity for a variety of outcomes, including clinical measures and utilization of health 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

4.6
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