| Title |
FIMA, the questionnaire for health-related resource use in the elderly population: validity, reliability, and usage of the Polish version in clinical practice
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Clinical Interventions in Aging, April 2018
|
| DOI | 10.2147/cia.s158951 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Justyna Mazurek, Edyta Sutkowska, Dorota Szcześniak, Katarzyna Małgorzata Urbańska, Joanna Rymaszewska |
| Abstract |
The purpose of this study was to determine the validity and reliability of the Polish version of the Questionnaire for Health-Related Resource Use in an Elderly Population [Fragebogen zur Inanspruchnahme medizinischer und nicht-medizinischer Versorgungsleistungen im Alter (FIMA)]. This was a cross-sectional study conducted in a rehabilitation care unit in Poland between January and June of 2017. Sixty-one patients aged ≥65 years who had been admitted to the unit were enrolled into the study. Each participant was evaluated twice: once within 48 hours of admission (T1) and once after 2 weeks (T2). The translated instrument was understood by most respondents in a selected population and it maintained a reading and comprehension level that was accessible by most respondents, even of a low education level. With the aid of the prevalence-adjusted bias-adjusted kappa (PABAK) and intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC), 100% test-retest reliability for 10 out of the 12 questions that were subjected to analysis was indicated. The most frequent health-related resource uses were appointments at the general practitioner (90.2%) and orthopedist (54.1%), medication (93.4%), and the necessity to have glasses as supportive equipment (70.5%). The Polish FIMA demonstrated very good test-retest reliability, good validity, and ease of use for elderly people. Further investigation is required. In the future, the routine use of this instrument could be encouraged to assess the use and demand for medical and nonmedical services among the elderly. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Australia | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 17 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 17 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Bachelor | 4 | 24% |
| Professor | 2 | 12% |
| Student > Master | 2 | 12% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 1 | 6% |
| Other | 1 | 6% |
| Other | 4 | 24% |
| Unknown | 3 | 18% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 7 | 41% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 2 | 12% |
| Economics, Econometrics and Finance | 1 | 6% |
| Sports and Recreations | 1 | 6% |
| Psychology | 1 | 6% |
| Other | 2 | 12% |
| Unknown | 3 | 18% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 02 May 2018.
All research outputs
#17,292,294
of 25,382,440 outputs
Outputs from Clinical Interventions in Aging
#1,255
of 1,968 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#221,892
of 343,807 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Clinical Interventions in Aging
#37
of 50 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,382,440 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,968 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 11.1. This one is in the 28th percentile – i.e., 28% 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 343,807 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 26th percentile – i.e., 26% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 50 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 16th percentile – i.e., 16% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.