首页> 外文期刊>Age and Ageing >Reply to Roberts et al’s response
【24h】

Reply to Roberts et al’s response

机译:回复罗伯茨等人的回复

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
       

摘要

SIR—We are writing in response to Roberts et al.’s (Age and Ageing E-letter 2010) reaction to our article ‘Finding the right outcome measures for care home research’. Our original article concluded that outcome measures should be selected that have been validated in the population being studied, and that there is a lack of appropriate outcome measures for use with care home populations. Although Roberts et al. concurred that measures appropriate to the population should be selected, based on their findings and contrary to our research, they argued that the assessment of handgrip is acceptable and feasible in care home populations. They reported response rates of 99% being able to complete grip strength measurements with both hands. Furthermore, they reported that whilst 7 and 17% found the measure painful and tiring, respectively, 92% were prepared to repeat the measure. Roberts et al. suggest that their results show grip strength assessment is acceptable and feasible in care home populations. However, we suggest that in reality, the response rates reported in their research are comparable to those observed in our study. Our study achieved completion rates ranging from 45 to 70% across all assessment time points taking into account both hands assessed. These rates were reported from the total sample size randomised. Unlike Roberts et al., we did not exclude anyone from attempting to complete this measure based on cognitive or physical impairment. Informed assent was gained for those unable to provide consent. Roberts et al. excluded 47% of potential participants due to severe dementia precluding informed consent, and a further 2% as a result of physical limitations. The response rate based on their total sample size was 64/133 (48%), which is comparable to the completion rates we found at follow-up assessment. We conclude that whilst Roberts et al.’s suggestion, that hand grip is feasible in care home populations, is accurate for those residents without major cognitive or physical impairments, it does not enable assessment of the general care home population due to the high prevalence of such impairments in this setting.
机译:SIR-我们写这篇文章是为了回应罗伯茨(Roberts)等人(Age and Aging E-letter 2010)对我们的文章“为养老院研究找到正确的结果度量”的反应。我们的原始文章得出的结论是,应选择已在所研究的人群中验证过的结局指标,并且缺乏适合护理之家人群的适当结局指标。虽然罗伯茨等。同意应根据他们的发现选择适合于人群的措施,并且与我们的研究相反,他们认为手握的评估在养老院人群中是可接受且可行的。他们报告说,能够用双手完成握力测量的响应率为99%。此外,他们报告说,虽然有7%和17%的人分别认为该措施令人痛苦和累人,但92%的人准备重复该措施。罗伯茨等。表明他们的结果表明,握力强度评估在养老院人群中是可以接受和可行的。但是,我们建议,实际上,他们的研究报告的响应率与我们研究中观察到的响应率相当。考虑到两只手的评估,我们的研究在所有评估时间点的完成率在45%到70%之间。从随机抽取的总样本量报告这些比率。与罗伯茨(Roberts)等人不同,我们并未排除任何人试图基于认知或身体损伤来完成这项措施。无法提供同意的人获得了知情同意。罗伯茨等。排除了47%的严重参与者因严重痴呆而无法获得知情同意的可能性,另外2%的参与者由于身体上的限制。基于总样本量的答复率为64/133(48%),与我们在后续评估中发现的完成率相当。我们得出的结论是,尽管罗伯茨等人的建议认为,在护理之家人群中手握是可行的,但对于那些没有重大认知或身体障碍的居民而言是准确的,但由于患病率较高,因此无法评估普通护理之家人群在这种情况下的损害。

著录项

  • 来源
    《Age and Ageing》 |2010年第4期|p.517-517|共1页
  • 作者单位

    University of Birmingham Email: t.j.hoppitt@bham.ac.uk;

  • 收录信息 美国《科学引文索引》(SCI);美国《化学文摘》(CA);
  • 原文格式 PDF
  • 正文语种 eng
  • 中图分类
  • 关键词

  • 入库时间 2022-08-18 01:10:37

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号