Back

Assessment of safe wheeled walker use in frail older adults: Development of a video-based rating instrument

Leonhardt, R.; Lindemann, U.; Schneider, M.; Rapp, K.; Klenk, J.

2026-06-08 geriatric medicine
10.64898/2026.06.04.26354904 medRxiv
Show abstract

Background: Wheeled walkers can improve safety during walking, but improper use may increase fall risk among frail older adults. No suitable tool exists to assess safe indoor wheeled walker use in this population. This study aimed to develop and validate a video-based expert assessment tool. Methods: Based on the literature and expert consensus, seven problematic indoor situations were identified, and an assessment tool with five safety criteria per situation was developed (maximum score = 35). Fifty participants (mean age 83.9 years, 64% women) from a geriatric rehabilitation clinic and a nursing home were video-recorded while using a rollator. Expert ratings were compared with nursing staff ratings, self-ratings, and the Timed Up and Go test to evaluate validity. Intra- and inter-rater reliability were determined from independent ratings by two physiotherapists and a repeated expert rating after seven days. Sensitivity to change was assessed after two weeks of rehabilitation, and feasibility by the time required for assessment. Results: The expert score of rater 1 at baseline was 28.5 points, and assessment required a mean of 17.5 minutes. Intra-rater reliability was excellent (ICC = 0.98) and inter-rater reliability was good (ICC = 0.80). Validity analyses showed the strongest association with nursing staff assessments (r = 0.74) and a moderate association with the Timed Up and Go test (r = -0.45). After two weeks, patients improved by an average of 2.38 points (8.4% of baseline score). Conclusions: The new instrument demonstrated high reliability, acceptable validity, sensitivity to change, and good feasibility for assessing safe wheeled walker use in frail older adults. Trial registration number and date of registration: DRKS00038358, 07/11/2025

Matching journals

The top 3 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

50% of probability mass above

"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.