Reliability of HOME FAST BRAZIL—Self-Reported Version for Community-Dwelling Older Adults

Abstract

Objective: Verify the intra- and inter-rater reliability of the HOME FAST BRAZIL—Self-reported version and correlate household environmental risks with the history of falls by community-dwelling older adults.Method: Cross sectional study with 50 community-dwelling older adults who were screened by the cut-off point of the Mini Mental State Exam and replied to the HOME FAST BRAZIL—Self-reported version using two evaluators, on three occasions. The reliability analysis was determined by the Intra-class Correlation Coefficient (ICC), considering ICC > 0.70 as adequate. To test the correlations, the Spearman test was used.Results: The mean age of the participants was 73.2 ± 5.8 years. The inter- rater reliability of HOME FAST BRAZIL—Self-reported version was ICC 0.83 (IC95%, 0.70–0.90) and the Intra- reliability ICC 0.85 (IC95%, 0.74–0.91). A risk of falls was verified in 88% of the sample and four environmental risks presented significant correlations with the history of falls.Conclusions: The HOME FAST BRAZIL—Self-reported version presented adequate reliability for the evaluation of household environmental risks for community-dwelling older adults. Risks such as inadequate armchairs/ sofas, the absence of anti-slip mats in the shower recess, the presence of pets and inadequate beds require attention in the evaluation of household risks, due to their correlation with the occurrence of falls.

Fall risk question-based tools for fall screening in community-dwelling older adults: a systematic review of the literature

“…The study design was cross-sectional in 8 studies [16][17][18][19][20][21][22][23] , retrospective in 1 24 , prospective in 10 [25][26][27][28][29][30][31][32][33][34] (with a followup period from 3 months to 3 years) and both retro-and prospective in 1 study 35 . Overall, the majority of the participants of the included studies were females with a percentage ranging from 45% to 84%.…”

“…Overall, the majority of the participants of the included studies were females with a percentage ranging from 45% to 84%. The number of questions per tool varied from 1 to 41 questions, as well as the type of the answers with 9 tools answered as yes/ no 18,19,21,24,32,33,35 , 5 as 4-point scale 16,20,22,29 , 2 as 11-point scale 28,31 , 1 as dichotomous 23 , 1 as multiple choice questions (MCQs) 25 and 6 as mixed answering systems 17,26,30,33,34 . Table 1 provides a detailed overview of the characteristics of the included studies.…”

“…Validity measures (AUC, sensitivity, specificity) were reported in 10 studies 18,22,[25][26][27]30,[32][33][34][35] , reliability measures (ICC and Cronbach's α) in 7 16,[19][20][21][22][23]32 and correlation coefficient in 3 19,20,22 . One study reported only the content validity coefficient 17 and one only the incident rate ratio between fallers and non-fallers 31 .…”

“…Lai et al 32 and Ferreira et al 21 , validated the use of the HomeFAST tool for community-dwelling older adults in China and Brazil respectively. The HomeFAST is a self-reporting screening tool which was originally reported by Mackenzie et al 37 to assess home hazards in fall risk.…”