Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37883134›Full record

ArticleJMIR aging2023

A Digital Tool for the Self-Assessment of Homes to Increase Age-Friendliness: Validity Study.

Roslyn Aclan, Stacey George, Kate Laver

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JMIR aging, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. 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.

Roslyn AclanCollege of Medicine and Public Health, Flinders University of South Australia, Adelaide, Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0009-0282-2677
Stacey GeorgeCaring Futures Institute, College of Nursing and Health Sciences, Flinders University of South Australia, Adelaide, Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0859-0215
Kate LaverCollege of Medicine and Public Health, Flinders University of South Australia, Adelaide, Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0259-2209

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundAge-friendly environments in homes and communities play an important role in optimizing the health and well-being of society. Older people have strong preferences for remaining at home as they age. Home environment assessment tools that enable older people to assess their homes and prepare for aging in place may be beneficial.

objectiveThis study aims to establish the validity of a digital self-assessment tool by assessing it against the current gold standard, an occupational therapy home assessment.

methodsA cohort of adults aged ≥60 years living in metropolitan Adelaide, South Australia, Australia, assessed their homes using a digital self-assessment tool with 89 questions simultaneously with an occupational therapist. Adults who were living within their homes and did not have significant levels of disabilities were recruited. Cohen κ and Gwet AC

resultsA total of 61 participants (age: mean 71.2, SD 7.03 years) self-assessed their own homes using the digital self-assessment tool. The overall levels of agreement were high, supporting the validity of the tool in identifying potential hazards. Lower levels of agreement were found in the following domains: steps (77% agreement, Gwet AC

conclusionsOlder people were able to self-assess their homes using a digital self-assessment tool. Digital health tools enable older people to start thinking about their future housing needs. Innovative tools that can identify problems and generate solutions may improve the age-friendliness of the home environment.

Indexed as

age-friendlinessagingdigitalhome environmentself-assessmenttool

Identifiers

PMID37883134
PMCPMC10636613

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.