Ferrell Sydney C, Ferrell Matthew C, Claassen Analise, Balogun Seki A, Vassar Matt
Office of Medical Student Research, Oklahoma State University Center for Health Sciences, 1111 W 17th St., Tulsa, OK, 74107, USA.
Department of the Geriatric Medicine, The University of Oklahoma College of Medicine, Oklahoma City, OK, USA.
Eur Geriatr Med. 2023 Oct;14(5):1075-1081. doi: 10.1007/s41999-023-00815-9. Epub 2023 Jul 28.
To assess frequently asked questions (FAQs) about mobility devices among older adults.
We searched multiple terms on Google to find FAQs. Rothwell's classification, JAMA benchmark criteria, and Brief DISCERN were used to categorize and assess each entry.
Our search yielded 224 unique combinations of questions and linked answer sources. Viewing questions alone resulted in 214 unique FAQs, with the majority seeking factual information (130/214, 60.7%). Viewing website sources alone resulted in 175 unique answer sources, most of which were retail commercial sites (68/175, 38.9%) followed by non-retail commercial sites (65/175, 37.1%). Statistical analysis showed a significant difference between the JAMA benchmark scores by source type (p < 0.00010) and Brief DISCERN scores by source type (p = 0.0001).
Our findings suggest government, academic, and possibly non-retail commercial sources may provide better quality information about the use of mobility devices. We recommend medical providers be prepared to promote and provide quality resources on the risks, benefits, and proper techniques for using mobility devices.
评估老年人中关于移动辅助设备的常见问题。
我们在谷歌上搜索了多个关键词以查找常见问题。使用罗斯韦尔分类法、《美国医学会杂志》基准标准和简易辨别工具对每个条目进行分类和评估。
我们的搜索产生了224个问题与相关答案来源的独特组合。仅查看问题就产生了214个独特的常见问题,其中大多数寻求事实性信息(130/214,60.7%)。仅查看网站来源就产生了175个独特的答案来源,其中大部分是零售商业网站(68/175,38.9%),其次是非零售商业网站(65/175,37.1%)。统计分析表明,按来源类型划分的《美国医学会杂志》基准分数之间存在显著差异(p < 0.00010),按来源类型划分的简易辨别工具分数之间也存在显著差异(p = 0.0001)。
我们的研究结果表明,政府、学术机构以及可能的非零售商业来源可能会提供有关移动辅助设备使用的质量更高的信息。我们建议医疗服务提供者准备好推广并提供关于使用移动辅助设备的风险、益处和正确技术的优质资源。