Background: there is a need for a measure of fear of falling that assesses both easy and difficult physical activities and social activities and is suitable for use in a range of languages and cultural contexts, permitting direct comparison between studies and populations in different countries and settings. Objective: to develop a modified version of the Falls Efficacy Scale to satisfy this need, and to establish its psychometric properties, reliability, and concurrent validity (i.e. that it demonstrates the expected relationship with age, falls history and falls risk factors). Design: cross-sectional survey. Setting: community sample. Method: 704 people aged between 60 and 95 years completed The Falls Efficacy Scale-International (FES-I) either in postal self-completion format or by structured interview. Results: the FES-I had excellent internal and test–retest reliability (Cronbach’s α=0.96, ICC=0.96). Factor analysis suggested a unitary underlying factor, with two dimensions assessing concern about less demanding physical activities mainly in the home, and concern about more demanding physical activities mainly outside the home. The FES-I had slightly better power than the original FES items to discriminate differences in concern about falling between groups differentiated by sex, age, occupation, falls in the past year, and falls risk factors (chronic illness, taking multiple or psychoactive medications, dizziness). Conclusions: the FES-I has close continuity with the best existing measure of fear of falling, excellent psychometric properties, and assesses concerns relating to basic and more demanding activities, both physical and social. Further research is required to confirm cross-cultural and predictive validity.

Background: the 16-item Falls Efficacy Scale-International (FES-I) has been shown to have excellent reliability and construct validity. However, for practical and clinical purposes, a shortened version of the FES-I would be useful. Objective: to develop and validate a shortened version of FES-I while preserving good psychometric properties. Design: initial development of a shortened version using data from a UK survey (Short FES-I; n = 704), test of reliability and validity of the Short FES-I using data from a Dutch survey ( n = 300). Setting: community samples. Methods: comparison of reliability and validity of the Short FES-I and the FES-I in a random sample of 193 people aged between 70 and 92. Results: the internal and 4-week test–retest reliability of the Short FES-I is excellent (Cronbach's alpha 0.92, intra-class coefficient 0.83) and comparable to the FES-I. The correlation between the Short FES-I and the FES-I is 0.97. Patterns in differences with respect to mean scores according to age, sex, falls history, and overall fear of falling are similar for the Short FES-I and the FES-I. The FES-I had slightly better power to discriminate between groups differentiated by age, sex, falls history, and fear falling, but differences are small. Conclusions: the Short FES-I is a good and feasible measure to assess fear of falling in older persons. However, if researchers or clinicians are particularly interested in the distributions of specific fear of falling-related activities not included in the Short FES-I, the use of the full FES-I is recommended.

Objective: to review systematically the range of case definitions and methods used to measure falls in randomised controlled trials. Design/methods: a Cochrane review of fall prevention interventions was used to identify fall definitions in published trials. Secondary searches of various databases were used to identify additional methodological or theoretical papers. Two independent reviewers undertook data extraction, with adjudication by a third reviewer in cases of disagreement. Settings: community-dwelling and institutionalised older persons. Results: 90 publications met the predefined inclusion criteria. Of these, 44 provided no definition of the term fall. In the remainder, there were substantial variations in the definition and methods of measuring falls. Reporting periods ranged from 1 week to 4 years with only 41% using prospective data collection methods. Conclusion: the standard of reporting falls in published trials is poor and significantly impedes comparison between studies. The review has been used to inform an international consensus exercise to make recommendations for a core set of outcome measures for fall prevention trials.

Despite being a core business of medicine, end of life care (EoLC) is neglected. It is hampered by research that is difficult to conduct with no common standards. We aimed to develop evidence-based guidance on the best methods for the design and conduct of research on EoLC to further knowledge in the field.