OBJECTIVE: To compare the fall history between older adults with and without a previous stroke and to identify the determinants of falls and fear of falling in older stroke survivors.
DESIGN: Case-control observational study.
SETTING: Primary teaching hospital.
PARTICIPANTS: Seventy-five patients with stroke (mean age ± standard deviation, 66 ± 7 years) and 50 age-matched control participants with no previous stroke were tested.
METHODS: Fall history, fear of falling, and physical, cognitive, and psychological function were assessed. A χ2 test was performed to compare characteristics between groups, and logistic regression was performed to determine the risk factors for falls and fear of falling.
MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Fall events in the past 12 months, Fall Efficacy Scale-International, Berg Balance Scale, Functional Ambulation Category, Fatigue Severity Scale, Montreal Cognitive Assessment, and Patient Healthy Questionnaire-9 were measured for all participants. Fugl-Meyer Motor Assessment was used to quantify severity of stroke motor impairments.
RESULTS: Twenty-three patients and 13 control participants reported at least one fall in the past 12 months (P = .58). Nine participants with stroke had recurrent falls (≥2 falls) compared with none of the control participants (P < .01). Participants with stroke reported greater concern for falling than did nonstroke control participants (P < .01). Female gender was associated with falls in the nonstroke group, whereas falls in the stroke group were not significantly associated with any measured outcomes. Fear of falling in the stroke group was associated with functional ambulation level and balance. Functional ambulation level alone explained 22% of variance in fear of falling in the stroke group.
CONCLUSIONS: Compared with persons without a stroke, patients with stroke were significantly more likely to experience recurrent falls and fear of falling. Falls in patients with stroke were not explained by any of the outcome measures used, whereas fear of falling was predicted by functional ambulation level. This study has identified potentially modifiable risk factors with which to devise future prevention strategies for falls in patients with stroke.
LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: III.
METHODS: A Group Model Building (GMB) exercise was conducted with researchers and clinicians from academic units and public healthcare institutes in Singapore. The aim of the exercise was to produce a shared visual representation of the causal structure for falls and engage in discussions on how current and future falls intervention programmes can address falls in the older adults, especially in the Asian context. It was conducted in four steps: 1) Outlining and prioritising desirable patient outcomes, 2) Conceptual model building, 3) Identifying key intervention elements of effective falls intervention programmes, 4) Mapping of interventions to outcomes. This causal loop diagram (CLD) was then used to generate insights into the current understanding of falls causal relationships, current efforts in falls intervention in Singapore, and used to identify gaps in falls research that could be further advanced in future intervention studies.
RESULTS: Four patient outcomes were identified by the group as key in falls intervention: 1) Falls, 2) Injurious falls, 3) Fear of falling, and 4) Restricted mobility and life space. A CLD of the reciprocal relationships between risk factors and these outcomes are represented in four sub-models: 1) Fear of falling, 2) Injuries associated with falls, 3) Caregiver overprotectiveness, 4) Post-traumatic stress disorder and psychological resilience. Through this GMB exercise, the group gained the following insights: (1) Psychological sequelae of falls is an important falls intervention outcome. (2) The effects of family overprotectiveness, psychological resilience, and PTSD in exacerbating the consequences of falls are not well understood. (3) There is a need to develop multi-component falls interventions to address the multitude of falls and falls related sequelae.
CONCLUSION: This work illustrates the potential of GMB to promote shared understanding of complex healthcare problems and to provide a roadmap for the development of more effective preventive actions.
STUDY DESIGN: This was a systematic review.
METHODS: Published research studies on FOF among older adults were searched using the following databases: PubMed, Cochrane Library, Scopus, ASEAN Citation Index, Thai Journal Citation Index, Malaysian Journal Citation Report and Google Scholar. All observational and experimental studies investigating FOF among community-dwelling older adults in Southeast Asia were eligible. A narrative synthesis was used to describe the findings. The Joanna Briggs Institute checklist was used to assess the quality and risk of bias of the included studies.
RESULTS: A total of 15 observational studies and three experimental studies were included after screening 2112 titles and abstracts. These studies, published between 2011 and 2021, were conducted in Malaysia, Singapore, Thailand and Vietnam. The FOF prevalence ranged from 21.6% to 88.2%. The most commonly used FOF assessment tool was the Falls Efficacy Scale-International. Well-reported related factors of FOF were female sex, advanced age, balance impairment and fall history. All experimental studies utilising single- or multi-component interventions comprised an exercise approach. Limited studies have considered environmental factors.
CONCLUSIONS: Various related factors of FOF and the interventions implemented were revealed. Public health researchers and policymakers should consider the factors related to FOF in practical FOF intervention and prevention strategies. Further evidence on FOF issues is required to understand the multidimensional characteristics of FOF, specifically the environmental aspects of older adults in Southeast Asia.
METHODS: This cross-sectional study was conducted in three paediatric oncology centres in Malaysia from September 2020 until December 2022. A total of 167 parents were recruited. Parents completed a set of questionnaires to assess their perception on effect of COVID-19 infection to children with cancer and COVID Stress Scale (CSS) to assess the parents' stress level.
RESULTS: Patients' mean age at study entry was 8.75 years (SD 4.38). Ninety-one (54.5%) patients were still on active treatment. More than 80% of the parents obtained information regarding COVID-19 infection from mass media and social networking. Fear of their children contracting COVID-19 infection was high especially among patients who were still on treatment. Forty-nine (29.3%) parents were significantly affected by the pandemic leading to loss of job or monthly income. Twenty-nine (17.4%) patients required treatment modification during the pandemic. The median total score for CSS was 78.0 (IQR 25th 64.0; 75th 95.0). Ninety-one (54.5%) respondents were very/extremely stressed based on the CSS scores. Components with high scores were xenophobia (median score 18.0; IQR 25th 13.0, 75th 22.0), fear of danger (median score 17.0; IQR 25th 14.0, 75th 20.0) and contamination fears (median score 16.0; IQR 25th 12.0, 75th 19.0). Lower household income was associated with higher stress level (p = 0.006).
CONCLUSION: Our study demonstrated high awareness regarding risk of COVID-19 infection among parents of oncology children. Half of the parents had high stress level, with low household income identified as a factor associated with high stress level.