Limits...
Functional Restriction for the Fear of Falling In Family Caregivers.

Shen J, Hu F, Liu F, Tong P - Medicine (Baltimore) (2015)

Bottom Line: The mean FES-I value of the family caregivers was significantly lower than that of the patients (85.39 versus 99.02, P < 0.001).The difference between patient and caregiver FES-I scores showed a significant positive correlation with the FRS (P < 0.001).Family caregivers were more concerned about falls than were patients.Furthermore, a greater difference in the fall-related reaction between caregivers and patients was associated with greater adverse effects on rehabilitation.

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

Affiliation: Orthopedic Department, The First Affiliated Hospital of Zhejiang Chinese Medical University, Zhejiang Provincial Hospital of TCM, Hangzhou (JS, FL, PT); Orthopedic Department, Tianjin Hospital, Tianjin, PR China (FH).

ABSTRACT
Hip fractures often result from falls, and most family caregivers fear another fall. This study aimed to assess this fear in family caregivers and analyze its influence on functional recovery.This study was retrospectively performed by interview at the clinic or through telephone contact. The Falls Efficacy Scale International (FES-I) was used to assess fall-related feelings of patients and their family caregivers.Of the 539 patients studied, hip fracture was caused by a fall in 467 (86.6%). The mean FES-I value of the family caregivers was significantly lower than that of the patients (85.39 versus 99.02, P < 0.001). The mean patient functional recovery score (FRS) was 68.41. A fracture caused by a fall and recurrent fall-related fractures both reduced caregiver FES-I scores. The difference between patient and caregiver FES-I scores showed a significant positive correlation with the FRS (P < 0.001).Family caregivers were more concerned about falls than were patients. Furthermore, a greater difference in the fall-related reaction between caregivers and patients was associated with greater adverse effects on rehabilitation.

Show MeSH

Related in: MedlinePlus

Curve fitting between FES-I and FRS. Linear (black line) and cubic (blue line). Curve estimation models were shown as follows: A, Between FES-I of patients and FRS. R2 in each model was 0.000 and 0.005 (P > 0.05). B, Between FES-I of family caregivers and FRS. R2 in each model was 0.180 and 0.184 (P < 0.001). C, Between subtracted FES-I and FRS. R2 in each model was 0.105 and 0.154 (P < 0.001). FES-I = The Falls Efficacy Scale International; FRS = functional recovery.
© Copyright Policy - open-access
Related In: Results  -  Collection

License
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC4504619&req=5

Figure 4: Curve fitting between FES-I and FRS. Linear (black line) and cubic (blue line). Curve estimation models were shown as follows: A, Between FES-I of patients and FRS. R2 in each model was 0.000 and 0.005 (P > 0.05). B, Between FES-I of family caregivers and FRS. R2 in each model was 0.180 and 0.184 (P < 0.001). C, Between subtracted FES-I and FRS. R2 in each model was 0.105 and 0.154 (P < 0.001). FES-I = The Falls Efficacy Scale International; FRS = functional recovery.

Mentions: Curve estimation was performed to estimate the correlation between FES-I score and FRS (Figure 4), and the fitting line was estimated by multiple models. The optimum fitting line between the FES-I score of the family caregivers and the FRS showed a cubic model (Figure 4B, blue line, R2 = 0.184, P < 0.001), whereas the subtracted FES-I score and FRS showed a cubic model (Figure 4C, blue line, R2 = 0.154, P < 0.001). There, however, was no optimum fitting line between the patients’ FES-I score and their FRS.


Functional Restriction for the Fear of Falling In Family Caregivers.

Shen J, Hu F, Liu F, Tong P - Medicine (Baltimore) (2015)

Curve fitting between FES-I and FRS. Linear (black line) and cubic (blue line). Curve estimation models were shown as follows: A, Between FES-I of patients and FRS. R2 in each model was 0.000 and 0.005 (P > 0.05). B, Between FES-I of family caregivers and FRS. R2 in each model was 0.180 and 0.184 (P < 0.001). C, Between subtracted FES-I and FRS. R2 in each model was 0.105 and 0.154 (P < 0.001). FES-I = The Falls Efficacy Scale International; FRS = functional recovery.
© Copyright Policy - open-access
Related In: Results  -  Collection

License
Show All Figures
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC4504619&req=5

Figure 4: Curve fitting between FES-I and FRS. Linear (black line) and cubic (blue line). Curve estimation models were shown as follows: A, Between FES-I of patients and FRS. R2 in each model was 0.000 and 0.005 (P > 0.05). B, Between FES-I of family caregivers and FRS. R2 in each model was 0.180 and 0.184 (P < 0.001). C, Between subtracted FES-I and FRS. R2 in each model was 0.105 and 0.154 (P < 0.001). FES-I = The Falls Efficacy Scale International; FRS = functional recovery.
Mentions: Curve estimation was performed to estimate the correlation between FES-I score and FRS (Figure 4), and the fitting line was estimated by multiple models. The optimum fitting line between the FES-I score of the family caregivers and the FRS showed a cubic model (Figure 4B, blue line, R2 = 0.184, P < 0.001), whereas the subtracted FES-I score and FRS showed a cubic model (Figure 4C, blue line, R2 = 0.154, P < 0.001). There, however, was no optimum fitting line between the patients’ FES-I score and their FRS.

Bottom Line: The mean FES-I value of the family caregivers was significantly lower than that of the patients (85.39 versus 99.02, P < 0.001).The difference between patient and caregiver FES-I scores showed a significant positive correlation with the FRS (P < 0.001).Family caregivers were more concerned about falls than were patients.Furthermore, a greater difference in the fall-related reaction between caregivers and patients was associated with greater adverse effects on rehabilitation.

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

Affiliation: Orthopedic Department, The First Affiliated Hospital of Zhejiang Chinese Medical University, Zhejiang Provincial Hospital of TCM, Hangzhou (JS, FL, PT); Orthopedic Department, Tianjin Hospital, Tianjin, PR China (FH).

ABSTRACT
Hip fractures often result from falls, and most family caregivers fear another fall. This study aimed to assess this fear in family caregivers and analyze its influence on functional recovery.This study was retrospectively performed by interview at the clinic or through telephone contact. The Falls Efficacy Scale International (FES-I) was used to assess fall-related feelings of patients and their family caregivers.Of the 539 patients studied, hip fracture was caused by a fall in 467 (86.6%). The mean FES-I value of the family caregivers was significantly lower than that of the patients (85.39 versus 99.02, P < 0.001). The mean patient functional recovery score (FRS) was 68.41. A fracture caused by a fall and recurrent fall-related fractures both reduced caregiver FES-I scores. The difference between patient and caregiver FES-I scores showed a significant positive correlation with the FRS (P < 0.001).Family caregivers were more concerned about falls than were patients. Furthermore, a greater difference in the fall-related reaction between caregivers and patients was associated with greater adverse effects on rehabilitation.

Show MeSH
Related in: MedlinePlus