Balance Assessment in Older People Using Inertial Sensors

Ghahramani, Maryam; Naghdy, Fazel; Stirling, David; Naghdy, Golshah; Potter, Jan

doi:10.12720/jomb.4.2.139-144

Cited by 4 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 30 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Few balance tests are scrutinized to evaluate frailty levels. Most of these tests are investigated with the help of sensor technology using IMU and optical sensors for risk of fall assessment [37,69,70]. The use of a Kinect sensor is validated to assess balance in the older people against the established standards of balance measurement such as force platforms and marker based Motion Capture Systems [71,72].…”

Section: Balance Assessment For Frailtymentioning

confidence: 99%

Assessment of frailty: a survey of quantitative and clinical methods

Panhwar

Naghdy

et al. 2019

BMC biomed eng

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Frailty assessment is a critical approach in assessing the health status of older people. The clinical tools deployed by geriatricians to assess frailty can be grouped into two categories; using a questionnaire-based method or analyzing the physical performance of the subject. In performance analysis, the time taken by a subject to complete a physical task such as walking over a specific distance, typically three meters, is measured. The questionnaire-based method is subjective, and the time-based performance analysis does not necessarily identify the kinematic characteristics of motion and their root causes. However, kinematic characteristics are crucial in measuring the degree of frailty. Results: The studies reviewed in this paper indicate that the quantitative analysis of activity of daily living, balance and gait are significant methods for assessing frailty in older people. Kinematic parameters (such as gait speed) and sensor-derived parameters are also strong markers of frailty. Seventeen gait parameters are found to be sensitive for discriminating various frailty levels. Gait velocity is the most significant parameter. Short term monitoring of daily activities is a more significant method for frailty assessment than is long term monitoring and can be implemented easily using clinical tests such as sit to stand or stand to sit. The risk of fall can be considered an outcome of frailty. Conclusion: Frailty is a multi-dimensional phenomenon that is defined by various domains; physical, social, psychological and environmental. The physical domain has proven to be essential in the objective determination of the degree of frailty in older people. The deployment of inertial sensor in clinical tests is an effective method for the objective assessment of frailty.

show abstract

Section: Balance Assessment For Frailtymentioning

confidence: 99%

Assessment of frailty: a survey of quantitative and clinical methods

Panhwar

Naghdy

et al. 2019

BMC biomed eng

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…However, some limitations were reported in measuring fall risk. In categorising age, the older age group is widely defined; thus, it needs to be divided for application to populations that are showing an ageing trend such as in South Korea (Ghahramani et al, 2016; Matarese et al, 2015; Park & Kim, 2016). In addition, some studies pointed out that the difference in scores was too large depending on whether or not there was a fall experience (Ghahramani et al, 2016).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In categorising age, the older age group is widely defined; thus, it needs to be divided for application to populations that are showing an ageing trend such as in South Korea (Ghahramani et al, 2016; Matarese et al, 2015; Park & Kim, 2016). In addition, some studies pointed out that the difference in scores was too large depending on whether or not there was a fall experience (Ghahramani et al, 2016). The seven‐item Johns Hopkins Fall Risk Assessment Tool (JHFRAT) is relatively specific and subdivided; therefore, it was reported to be useful to measure risk and manage high‐risk fall groups in acute care settings.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Validity of the Morse Fall Scale and the Johns Hopkins Fall Risk Assessment Tool for fall risk assessment in an acute care setting

Kim

Choi

Cho

et al. 2021

Journal of Clinical Nursing

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Aims and Objectives:To evaluate the measured fall risk score that more accurately reflects the changeable conditions in acute care settings, and to efficiently evaluate the association between falls and fall risk score. Background:The Morse Fall Scale (MFS) is a well-known easy-to-use tool, while the Johns Hopkins Fall Risk Assessment Tool (JHFRAT) consists of items with high specificity. Evaluating suitable fall-risk assessment tools to measure these changeable conditions may contribute to preventing falls in acute care settings. Design:Retrospective case-control study using the STROBE checklist. Methods:In an acute care setting (708-bedded university hospital with a regional emergency medical centre), the non-fall group was adjusted to fall group using propensity score matching. According to the fall rate of 3-5%, non-fall groups for each tool were selected (1386 and 1947) from the before adjusted data, and the fall groups included 42 and 59. The applied covariates were individual characteristics that ordinarily changed such as age, gender, diagnostic department and hospitalisation period.The adjusted data were analysed using generalised estimating equations and mixed effect model. Results:After adjustment, the fall group measured using the JHFRAT had a significantly higher difference between the initial and re-measured total score than the non-fall group. The JHFRAT, especially with the re-measured score, had a higher AUC value for predicting falls than the MFS. MFS's sensitivity was 85.7%, and specificity was 58.8% at 50 points; for JHFRAT, these were 67.8% and 80.2% at 14 points, respectively. These cut-off points were used to evaluate validity during tool development and are commonly used as reference scores.Conclusions: JHFRAT more accurately reflects acute changeable conditions related to fall risk measurements after admission.Relevance to clinical practice: JHFRAT may be useful for effective fall prevention activities in acute care settings.

show abstract