SCIENTIFIC HUB

Follow the evidence.

SCIENTIFIC LITERATURE · MED

Comparison of factors influencing fall recurrence in the young-old and old-old: a cross-sectional nationwide study in South Korea.

BMC Geriatr · 2022-06-25

DOI: 10.1186/s12877-022-03172-7PMID: 35751031

Open accessresearch-article; Journal ArticleOriginal source ↗

Research overview

The text below is the source article’s original abstract under a verified reuse license. cc by

BackgroundRecurrent falls are a concerning problem in the elderly. Elderly people aged > 65 years who are prone to fall often require medical treatment for severe fall-related injuries, which is associated with a substantial financial burden. Therefore, this study aimed to identify factors related to recurrent falls in the community-dwelling young-old (65-74 years old) and old-old (≥ 75 years) in South Korea.MethodsThis study used a cross-sectional, correlation design. Data from the 2017 National Survey of Older Koreans were used, and 5,838 young-old and 4,205 old-old elderly people were included in the analysis. The questionnaire included general characteristics, fall experience, physical status, mental status, and presence of chronic diseases. The data were analyzed using the chi-square test, one-way analysis of variance, and logistic regression analysis.ResultsIn the young-old elderly people, limitations in activities of daily living (p ConclusionsThis study identified differences in factors related to fall recurrence between the young-old and old-old elderly. The results of this study indicate that it is necessary to implement an intervention program to prevent fall recurrence by age group in consideration of the risk factors for fall recurrence in each elderly people group.

Scientific assessment

01

Research question

Assess the question within the original study’s scope.

02

Methods & sample

Check the source article for study design and sample details.

03

Key findings

An editorially approved findings summary is not yet published for this record.

04

Limitations

Generalizability, bias and clinical meaning require separate assessment.

Methods, samples and clinical conclusions are not inferred from bibliographic metadata.