Contributions
Abstract: P1023
Type: Poster Sessions
Abstract Category: Clinical aspects of MS - Clinical assessment tools
Introduction: Falls are common in people with MS but the accuracy of fall frequency estimates are limited by detection methods. Daily self-report fall calendars are the current recommended gold standard but these have many drawbacks. Daily calendars require subjects to recall their falls over a day, paper calendars are easily lost or misplaced, and this format allows the individual to complete a monthly calendar page all at once, potentially many days after a fall occurred. A real-time body-worn fall-counting device may be more accurate as it would not require such long recall, may be less susceptible to loss, and would likely promote a shorter delay between a fall and its report.
Objectives: To compare fall counting using prospective daily self-report calendars with a novel real-time body-worn self-report device in people with MS.
Aims: To compare the number and concurrence of falls reported with self-report calendars and a real-time body-worn self-report device over 8 weeks in 15 people with MS.
Methods: 15 ambulatory people with MS completed prospective daily self-report 1-month paper fall calendars and reported their falls during the day in real-time with a body-worn device for eight weeks. They were instructed to write their number of falls each day on the calendar and to mail each calendar back at the end of each month. They were also instructed to wear the fall reporting device each day and to press the button on it whenever they fell. The number and days of falls were compared.
Results: Overall, a similar number of falls were reported with the calendars and the button presses (48 calendar falls, 53 button presses, 1.10 presses per calendar fall). However, only 23 (48% of the calendar falls) were recorded on the calendar with a button press on the same day, leaving 25 calendar falls and 30 button presses reported by only one method.
Conclusions: This study suggests that although a real-time body-worn self-report device captures more falls than a daily calendar, neither approach captures all falls. Of a total of 78 potential falls, calendars captured 62% and button presses captured 68%. This finding is consistent with previous research suggesting that self-reporting of daily activities and events is often inaccurate, particularly in populations with disorders affecting cognition, and supports the need for developing accurate, objective fall detection methods not reliant on self-report.
Disclosure: Andrea Hildebrand, Joseph Leitschuh, Clara Mosquera-Lopez, and Sos Oganessian: nothing to disclose. Peter Jacobs, Jonathon Folsom, and Eric Wan have financial interest in MotioSens, a company that may have a commercial interest in the results of this research and technology. This potential conflict of interest has been reviewed and managed by Oregon Health & Science University. Michelle Cameron has received consulting fees from Adamas Corporation. This study is funded by the United States Department of Veterans Affairs, Rehabilitation Research & Development Service, Merit Award #RX001831-01A1
Abstract: P1023
Type: Poster Sessions
Abstract Category: Clinical aspects of MS - Clinical assessment tools
Introduction: Falls are common in people with MS but the accuracy of fall frequency estimates are limited by detection methods. Daily self-report fall calendars are the current recommended gold standard but these have many drawbacks. Daily calendars require subjects to recall their falls over a day, paper calendars are easily lost or misplaced, and this format allows the individual to complete a monthly calendar page all at once, potentially many days after a fall occurred. A real-time body-worn fall-counting device may be more accurate as it would not require such long recall, may be less susceptible to loss, and would likely promote a shorter delay between a fall and its report.
Objectives: To compare fall counting using prospective daily self-report calendars with a novel real-time body-worn self-report device in people with MS.
Aims: To compare the number and concurrence of falls reported with self-report calendars and a real-time body-worn self-report device over 8 weeks in 15 people with MS.
Methods: 15 ambulatory people with MS completed prospective daily self-report 1-month paper fall calendars and reported their falls during the day in real-time with a body-worn device for eight weeks. They were instructed to write their number of falls each day on the calendar and to mail each calendar back at the end of each month. They were also instructed to wear the fall reporting device each day and to press the button on it whenever they fell. The number and days of falls were compared.
Results: Overall, a similar number of falls were reported with the calendars and the button presses (48 calendar falls, 53 button presses, 1.10 presses per calendar fall). However, only 23 (48% of the calendar falls) were recorded on the calendar with a button press on the same day, leaving 25 calendar falls and 30 button presses reported by only one method.
Conclusions: This study suggests that although a real-time body-worn self-report device captures more falls than a daily calendar, neither approach captures all falls. Of a total of 78 potential falls, calendars captured 62% and button presses captured 68%. This finding is consistent with previous research suggesting that self-reporting of daily activities and events is often inaccurate, particularly in populations with disorders affecting cognition, and supports the need for developing accurate, objective fall detection methods not reliant on self-report.
Disclosure: Andrea Hildebrand, Joseph Leitschuh, Clara Mosquera-Lopez, and Sos Oganessian: nothing to disclose. Peter Jacobs, Jonathon Folsom, and Eric Wan have financial interest in MotioSens, a company that may have a commercial interest in the results of this research and technology. This potential conflict of interest has been reviewed and managed by Oregon Health & Science University. Michelle Cameron has received consulting fees from Adamas Corporation. This study is funded by the United States Department of Veterans Affairs, Rehabilitation Research & Development Service, Merit Award #RX001831-01A1