↓ Skip to main content

Prevalence, risk factors and disability associated with fall-related injury in older adults in low- and middle-incomecountries: results from the WHO Study on global AGEing and adult health (SAGE)

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Medicine, June 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (67th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
8 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
179 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
425 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Prevalence, risk factors and disability associated with fall-related injury in older adults in low- and middle-incomecountries: results from the WHO Study on global AGEing and adult health (SAGE)
Published in
BMC Medicine, June 2015
DOI 10.1186/s12916-015-0390-8
Pubmed ID
Authors

Jennifer Stewart Williams, Paul Kowal, Heather Hestekin, Tristan O’Driscoll, Karl Peltzer, Alfred Yawson, Richard Biritwum, Tamara Maximova, Aarón Salinas Rodríguez, Betty Manrique Espinoza, Fan Wu, Perianayagam Arokiasamy, Somnath Chatterji, SAGE collaborators

Abstract

In 2010 falls were responsible for approximately 80 % of disability stemming from unintentional injuries excluding traffic accidents in adults 50 years and over. Falls are becoming a major public health problem in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) where populations are ageing rapidly. Nationally representative standardized data collected from adults aged 50 years and over participating in the World Health Organization (WHO) Study on global AGEing and adult health (SAGE) Wave 1 in China, Ghana, India, Mexico, the Russian Federation and South Africa are analysed. The aims are to identify the prevalence of, and risk factors for, past-year fall-related injury and to assess associations between fall-related injury and disability. Regression methods are used to identify risk factors and association between fall-related injury and disability. Disability was measured using the WHO Disability Assessment Schedule Version 2.0 (WHODAS 2.0). The prevalence of past-year fall-related injuries ranged from 6.6 % in India to 1.0 % in South Africa and was 4.0 % across the pooled countries. The proportion of all past-year injuries that were fall-related ranged from 73.3 % in the Russian Federation to 44.4 % in Ghana. Across the six countries this was 65.7 %. In the multivariable logistic regression, the odds of past-year fall-related injury were significantly higher for: women (OR: 1.27; 95 % CI: 0.99,1.62); respondents who lived in rural areas (OR: 1.36; 95 % CI: 1.06,1.75); those with depression (OR: 1.43; 95 % CI: 1.01,2.02); respondents who reported severe or extreme problems sleeping (OR: 1.54; 95 % CI: 1.15,2.08); and those who reported two or more (compared with no) chronic conditions (OR: 2.15; 95 % CI: 1.45,3.19). Poor cognition was also a significant risk factor for fall-related injury. The association between fall-related injury and the WHODAS measure of disability was highly significant (P<0.0001) with some attenuation after adjusting for confounders. Reporting two or more chronic conditions (compared with none) was significantly associated with disability (P<0.0001). The findings provide a platform for improving understanding of risk factors for falls in older adults in this group of LMICs. Clinicians and public health professionals in these countries must be made aware of the extent of this problem and the need to implement policies to reduce the risk of falls in older adults.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 8 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 425 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Spain 1 <1%
Unknown 424 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 75 18%
Researcher 43 10%
Student > Ph. D. Student 43 10%
Student > Bachelor 43 10%
Student > Postgraduate 32 8%
Other 76 18%
Unknown 113 27%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 107 25%
Nursing and Health Professions 67 16%
Social Sciences 35 8%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 11 3%
Psychology 11 3%
Other 63 15%
Unknown 131 31%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 23 June 2015.
All research outputs
#7,139,320
of 23,314,015 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medicine
#2,570
of 3,508 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#82,219
of 265,006 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medicine
#61
of 73 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,314,015 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 68th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,508 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 43.8. This one is in the 26th percentile – i.e., 26% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 265,006 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 67% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 73 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 17th percentile – i.e., 17% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.