ArticlePloS one2025
Design of a clinical balance tool for fall risk assessments: A development and usability study.
Article in PloS one, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundFalls are a significant source of early morbidity and mortality in the aging population, yet clinical changes that lead to increased fall risks often escape early identification and intervention. A device to measure postural control would facilitate evidence-based fall risk assessment.
objectivesOur objectives were to iteratively develop a prototype quantitative posture instrument (QuPI) to replace the weight scale and to assess barriers and facilitators of its implementation in a clinical setting.
methodsWe undertook an iterative formative evaluation and usability study of QuPI prototypes in primary care, medical oncology, sports medicine, cardiology, and endocrinology outpatient clinics. Clinicians evaluated an initial QuPI prototype and completed a semi-structured interview to determine critical functionality, inform design, and assess usability. The QuPI was then modified according to the results, and a new prototype was tested and evaluated.
resultsEighteen clinicians participated in both rounds of interviews. Clinicians who participated (referred to as participants) reported willingness to use the QuPI with all patients during the first round of interviews and stated they would replace their current weight scale with the modified QuPI during the second round of interviews. Participants identified design elements that were both facilitators and barriers to use. Usability scores for both prototypes were excellent. Despite several national guidelines for fall risk assessments, lack of consistent use of guidelines by care teams was found to be a barrier to effective fall risk assessments.
conclusionThe QuPI provides a new method for quantifying fall risks with good user acceptance, usability, and clinical feasibility without disrupting workflow. The QuPI supplemented and facilitated the use of standard algorithms for fall risk assessment. Greater education of the entire care team regarding evidence-based fall risk assessment will promote adherence to guidelines and fall prevention.
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.