ArticlePloS one2020
Predictive validity of three home fall hazard assessment tools for older adults in Thailand.
Article in PloS one, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Construction of the Short-Form Thai-Home Fall Hazard Assessment Tool (Thai-HFHAT-SF) and Testing Its Validity and Reliability in the Elderly.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2022Trial
- Prevalence and associated factors of geriatric syndromes using an online self-administered screening tool based on the ICOPE framework in primary care.BMC geriatrics · 2026Article
- When the home becomes a hazard: fall risks among older adults in Thailand's coastal rural communities.BMC public health · 2026Article
- Article
- Stroke Rehabilitation for Falls and Risk of Falls in Southeast Asia: A Scoping Review With Stakeholders' Consultation.Frontiers in public health · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This study aimed to examine the predictive validity of two internationally well-known instruments, the Modified Home Falls and Accidents Screening Tool (Modified HOME FAST) and the Modified Home Falls and Accidents Screening Tool-Self Report (Modified HOME FAST-SR), and the newly developed Thai Home Falls Hazard Assessment Tool (Thai-HFHAT) (69 items) in predicting falls among older Thai adults. It also aimed to examine the predictive validity of the two abbreviated versions (44 and 27 items) of the Thai-HFHAT, which were developed post hoc to accommodate older adults' limited literacy and poor vision and to facilitate the identification of high-impact home fall hazards that are prevalent in the Thailand context. A prospective cohort study was conducted among 450 participants aged 60 years and above who were assessed by the aforementioned tools at baseline, for which data on fall incidence were then collected during the one-year follow-up. The Cox proportional hazard model was applied to estimate hazard ratios (HRs); then, Harrell's C-statistics and receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analyses were conducted to identify the best cutoff point, sensitivity and specificity for each instrument. The results showed that the fall hazard rate was 2.04 times per 1,000 person-days. Taking into account both the predictive validity and applicability, the Thai-HFHAT (44 items) was found to be the most suitable screening tool due to its highest sensitivity and specificity (93% and 72%) at the cutoff score of 18. In conclusion, our study showed that these internationally validated home fall hazard assessment tools were quite applicable for Thailand, but further tailoring the tools into a specific local context yielded even more highly valid tools in predicting fall risk among older Thai adults. Although these findings were well reproducible by inferring from the internal validation results, further external validation in the independent population is necessary.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.