害怕跌倒
心理学
包裹体(矿物)
系统回顾
临床心理学
梅德林
人为因素与人体工程学
医学
毒物控制
社会心理学
政治学
法学
环境卫生
作者
Vanessa Alpalhão,Nuno Cordeiro,Pedro Pezarat‐Correia
出处
期刊:Journal of Geriatric Physical Therapy
[Ovid Technologies (Wolters Kluwer)]
日期:2022-08-05
卷期号:45 (4): 207-214
被引量:2
标识
DOI:10.1519/jpt.0000000000000354
摘要
Background and Purpose: In light of the fear avoidance model, kinesiophobia and fear avoidance (FA) can lead to physical inactivity and disability. Previous studies regarding kinesiophobia and FA in older adults have reported conflicting results. The purpose of this review was to identify the reported constructs and assessment instruments used in published studies on kinesiophobia and FA in older adults and to verify the alignment between the instruments used and the constructs under study. Methods: Following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses 2020 statement (PRISMA-2020), 4 databases were searched from January 2005 to March 2020. All study types, except qualitative, were eligible for inclusion. The participants were 65 years and older. Studies were excluded in the absence of sufficient data on participant age. Study characteristics, constructs related to kinesiophobia, fear and/or avoidance, and instruments used were extracted independently by 2 reviewers. Results: Fourteen articles were selected for inclusion in the study, in which 7 constructs were identified. The most reported constructs were “fear avoidance beliefs” (FAB) (50%; n = 7), “kinesiophobia” (35.7%; n = 5), and “fear of falling” (14.3%; n = 2). The remaining constructs were only approached, each in 7.1% (n = 1) of the included studies. Seven instruments were used to assess the constructs. The Fear Avoidance Beliefs Questionnaire (FABQ) was the most used instrument (n = 3) to evaluate “FAB,” and the Tampa Scale for Kinesiophobia-11 (TSK-11) was the most reported (n = 3) to assess “kinesiophobia.” Conclusion: This review identified a large diversity in the constructs and instruments used to study kinesiophobia and FA among older adults. Some constructs are used interchangeably although they do not share the same conceptual definition. There is poor standardization in the use of assessment tools in accordance with the construct under study. Clinical evaluation and study results can be biased owing to this ambiguity.
科研通智能强力驱动
Strongly Powered by AbleSci AI