Trial reportBMC geriatrics2026
Assessing concerns about falling: a comparison of telephone-based and face-to-face FES-I interviews in older adults.
Trial report in BMC geriatrics, 2026. 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundConcerns about falling (CaF) are commonly assessed using the Falls Efficacy Scale-International (FES-I), but telephone versus face-to-face interviews may influence responses. The objective of this secondary paired method-comparison analysis was to assess agreement between telephone and face-to-face FES-I total scores in older adults and to explore whether the two administration modes differed at the total-score and item levels.
methodsData were drawn from the FEARFALL study, a longitudinal randomized controlled trial on stress and functional health in older adults with CaF. FES-I scores of 123 participants aged 70 years and older were collected via both telephone and face-to-face interviews. Differences in total scores, item-level differences, and regression models were analyzed to identify potential influencing factors.
resultsFES-I scores obtained during the telephone-first assessment were lower than those obtained at the subsequent face-to-face assessment (p < .001; d = -0.34). Agreement between the two modes was moderate to good (ICC = 0.67). In addition, the two assessment modes showed a high correlation (r = .71) with heterogeneity at the item level. Three items showed significant deviations (Item 4: "bathing/showering", p
conclusionThe telephone FES-I may be suitable for group-level comparisons and large-scale screenings. However, the interchangeability of telephone and face-to-face interview for individual clinical use remains uncertain. Since telephone assessment was always performed first and the time interval between assessments varied, the observed differences cannot be attributed to administration mode alone. Further studies specifically designed to compare administration modes are needed.
trial registrationGerman Clinical Trials Register (DRKS00029171), registered 22 July 2022.
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.