Exploring risk profiles and emergency frequency of purchasers and non-purchasers of personal emergency alarms: a prospective cohort studyReportar como inadecuado




Exploring risk profiles and emergency frequency of purchasers and non-purchasers of personal emergency alarms: a prospective cohort study - Descarga este documento en PDF. Documentación en PDF para descargar gratis. Disponible también para leer online.

BMC Geriatrics

, 15:140

First Online: 27 October 2015Received: 01 May 2015Accepted: 19 October 2015

Abstract

BackgroundPersonal alarms support independent living and have the potential to reduce serious consequences after a fall or during a medical emergency. While some Australian states have government funded personal alarm programs, others do not; but user-pays services are available. Although several studies have examined the profiles of alarm users, little is known about the risk profile of non-users. Specifically, whether there are -at risk- individuals who are unable, or choose not to purchase a service, who experience a home-based emergency in which an alarm could have mitigated an adverse outcome. This study aimed to describe the ‘risk profile’ of purchasers and non-purchasers of alarms; explore the reasons behind the decision to purchase or not to purchase and identify how often emergency assistance was needed and why.

MethodsPurchasers and non-purchasers were followed for one year in this prospective cohort study. Demographic, decision-making and risk factor data were collected at an initial face-to-face interview, while information about emergencies was collected by monthly calls.

ResultsOne hundred and fifty-seven purchasers and sixty-five non-purchasers completed the study. The risk profiles between the groups were similar in terms of gender, living arrangements, fall history and medical conditions. Purchasers Mean = 82.6 years were significantly older than non-purchasers Mean = 79.3 years, t220 = −3.38, p = 0.000 and more functionally dependent on the IADL z = −2.57, p = 0.010 and ADL z = −2.45 p = 0.014 function scores. Non-purchasers Mean = 8.04, SD = 3.57 were more socially isolated with significantly fewer family networks than purchasers Mean = 9.46, SD = 3.25 t220 = −2.86, p = 0.005. Both groups experienced similarly high numbers of emergencies, 38.2 % of purchasers and 41.5 % of non-purchasers had at least one emergency where an alarm could have assisted. Main reasons for non-purchase were: cost 77 %, limited alarm range 51 %, no need 39 % and lack of suitable contacts 30 %.

ConclusionThere are older individuals who are at high risk of an emergency who are choosing, often for financial and lack of family support reasons, not to purchase a personal alarm service. Greater availability of government funded subsidy schemes would enable these individuals to access a service. Increasing the range over which alarms work could increase their appeal to a broader range of older persons living in the community. Future research should consider how strategies that improve social isolation from family and challenge clients’ beliefs about their own health and independence can support increased access to personal alarm services.

KeywordsAssistive technology Personal alarms Older people AbbreviationsMFESmodified falls efficacy scale

LSNSlubben social network scale

PWIpersonal wellbeing index

ADLactivities of daily living

IADLinstrumental activities of daily living

Download fulltext PDF



Autor: Kristen De San Miguel - Gill Lewin - Elissa Burton - Christine Toye - Duncan Boldy - Peter Howat

Fuente: https://link.springer.com/







Documentos relacionados