Search

Purpose: The US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has implemented the Stopping Elderly Accidents, Deaths, and Injuries (STEADI) initiative. This initiative provides an algorithm for fall risk screening. However, the algorithm has the potential to overcategorize individuals as high risk for falling upon initial screening, which may burden clinicians with the task of recategorizing individuals after follow-up testing. Therefore, this study aimed to compare the accuracy, sensitivity, and specificity of fall risk appraisal between the STEADI, Short Fall-Efficacy Scale International (FES-I), and portable balance system (BTrackS) assessments in community-dwelling older adults., Patients and Methods: This cross-sectional analysis included 122 community-dwelling older adults, comprising 94 women and 28 men. Center-of-pressure postural sway was assessed using the BTrackS, fear of falling was assessed using the Short FES-I questionnaire, and all participants completed the STEADI checklist. Each assessment categorized participants as either high or low fall risk and fall risk appraisal was compared between groups using McNemar tests., Results: The STEADI checklist (high risk: n = 62; low risk: n = 60) significantly differed in fall risk appraisal compared to the BTrackS (high risk: n = 44; low risk: n = 78; p = 0.014) and the Short FES-I (high risk: n = 42; low risk: n = 80; p = 0.002). Compared to the BTrackS, the STEADI checklist had a specificity of 62.8%, sensitivity of 70.5%, and accuracy of 65.6%. Compared to the Short FES-I, the STEADI checklist had a specificity of 67.5%, sensitivity of 81.0%, and accuracy of 72.1%., Conclusion: The STEADI checklist appears to overcategorize individuals as high fall risk more frequently than direct assessments of postural sway and fear of falling. Further research is needed to examine potential improvements in accuracy when combining the STEADI checklist with direct assessments of postural sway and/or fear of falling., Competing Interests: KL, AB, and JRS received financial support from the National Institutes of Health under supplemental Grant number 3R01MD018025-02S1. JRS, ET, NL, JP, RX and LT received financial support from the National Institute on Aging (R03AG06799), the National Institute on Minority Health and Health Disparities (R01MD018025) and the Office of the Director, Chief Officer for Scientific Workforce Diversity (COSWD) Office (3R01MD018025-02S1) of the National Institutes of Health. LT also received support from the National Science Foundation (NSF2222662). DHF has no conflicts of interest to report. The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the National Institutes of Health., (© 2024 Lafontant et al.)