Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33804715›Full record

ArticleInternational journal of environmental research and public health2021

Use of Standardized and Non-Standardized Tools for Measuring the Risk of Falls and Independence in Clinical Practice.

Jan Neugebauer, Valérie Tóthová, Jitka Doležalová

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in International journal of environmental research and public health, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

8 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. The Importance of Standardized Assessment.Movement disorders clinical practice · 2024
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Jan NeugebauerInstitute of Nursing Midwifery and Social Sciences, Faculty of Health and Social Sciences, University of South Bohemia in Ceske Budejovice, 370 11 Ceske Budejovice, Czech Republic.ORCID 0000-0001-5216-1015
Valérie TóthováInstitute of Nursing Midwifery and Social Sciences, Faculty of Health and Social Sciences, University of South Bohemia in Ceske Budejovice, 370 11 Ceske Budejovice, Czech Republic.ORCID 0000-0002-7119-8419
Jitka DoležalováInstitute of Nursing Midwifery and Social Sciences, Faculty of Health and Social Sciences, University of South Bohemia in Ceske Budejovice, 370 11 Ceske Budejovice, Czech Republic.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

(1) Background: The use of standardized tools is regarded as the basis for an evidence-based assessment. The tools enable monitoring of complex events and the effectiveness of adopted interventions. Some healthcare facilities use standardized tools such as the Morse Fall Scale, but many use non-standardized tools created based on patient needs. Our study question was, why are non-standardized tools used when standardized tools are more beneficial and can be statistically evaluated and compared to other results; (2) Methods: We used a quantitative, non-standardized questionnaire to survey 1200 nurses, which was representative sample for the entire Czech Republic. All questionnaires were assessed in two phases (a) the frequency evaluation and descriptive analysis, and (b) hypotheses testing and correlation analyses; (3) Results: We found that the Conley Scale, Barthel test, and IADL test were preferred by many nurses. Furthermore, we found that nurses using standardized assessment scales noticed risk factors significantly more frequently but regarded the increased complexity of care to be psychologically demanding. (4) Conclusions: In patients with physical disabilities, both types of tools (internal non-standardized and standardized) are used to assess the risk of falls and independence; nurses generally welcomed the increase use of standardized tools in their facilities.

Indexed as

Accidental FallsCzech RepublicHumansRisk FactorsSurveys and Questionnairesnurse opinionsnursing assessmentnursing practicephysical disabilitiesstandardized tools

Identifiers

PMID33804715
PMCPMC8004039

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.