Effectiveness of robotics fall prevention program among elderly in senior housings, Bangkok, Thailand: a quasi-experimental study

Figures & data

Figure 1 Flowchart of this study.

Abbreviations: BBS, Berg Balance Scale; TUG, Timed Up and Go.

Figure 2 Dinsow Mini^® robot.²¹

Note: Copyright ©2012. CT Asia Robotics Co. Ltd. Reproduced from CT Asia Robotics Co. L. Dinsow Mini 2012;2012. Available from: http://www.ctasiarobotics.com/home/index.php. Accessed June 12, 2018.²¹

Table 1 Baseline comparison on sociodemographic characteristics of participants (n=64)

Variables	Intervention (N=32)		Control (N=32)		χ^2	P-value
	N	%	N	%
Demographics
Sex
Female	24	37.5	27	42.2	0.869	0.351
Male	8	12.5	5	7.8
Age (years), mean ± SD = 74.4±9.3
≥76	13	20.3	16	25.0	0.567	0.451
60–75	19	29.7	16	25.0
Education
High school and above	20	31.3	15	23.4	1.576	0.209
Primary school	12	18.8	17	26.6
Income
Not enough	2	3.4	7	10.9	3.232	0.072
Enough	30	46.9	25	39.1
Comorbidities
≥3	17	26.6	16	25.0	0.063	0.802
<3	15	23.4	16	25.0
Medication risk
Yes	23	35.9	28	43.8	2.413	0.120
No	9	14.1	4	6.3
Physical functions
Eyesight problem
Yes	27	42.2	27	42.2	0.000	1.000
No	5	7.8	5	7.8
TUG, mean ± SD = 20.7±7.7
≥mean	13	20.3	12	18.8	0.066	0.798
<mean	19	29.7	20	31.3
BBS, mean ± SD = 45.3±10.6
≥mean	18	28.1	17	26.6	0.063	0.802
<mean	14	21.9	15	23.4
Physical activities >30 minutes,
≥3 times/week
Yes	26	40.6	19	29.7	3.668	0.055
No	6	9.4	13	20.3
Knowledge on fall prevention: mean ± SD = 25.8±4.5
≥mean	17	26.6	21	32.8	1.036	0.309
<mean	15	23.4	11	17.2
Environmental hazards
≥2	12	18.8	14	21.9	0.259	0.611
<2	20	31.3	18	28.1
Fall experienced
Yes	23	35.9	22	34.4	0.075	0.784
No	9	14.1	10	15.6

Note: Significant at P<0.05.

Abbreviations: BBS, Berg Balance Scale; TUG, Timed Up and Go.

Table 2 Multiple comparisons on knowledge, number of exercises, TUG, BBS, and incidence of falls within and between groups (n=64)

Variable measures	Intervention group (N=32)		Control group (N=32)		P-value
	Mean	SD	Mean	SD
Knowledge
Baseline	25.25	4.24	26.406	4.79	0.310
Month 3	26.94	4.20	26.469	4.19	0.657
Month 6	27.78	3.57	27.500	4.37	0.779
P-value	<0.001		0.029
Bonferroni post hoc analysisa	A (P=0.026)		A (P=1.000)
	B (P<0.001)		B (P=0.550)
	C (P=0.076)		C (P=0.025)
Numbers of exercises
Month 3	10.28	17.01	1.75	7.02	0.011
Month 6	18.41	24.00	6.50	15.22	0.021
P-valuea	0.041b		0.080b
TUG
Baseline	20.95	7.62	20.47	7.78	0.806
Month 3	20.37	6.88	20.38	7.81	0.995
Month 6	19.54	7.68	20.87	8.12	0.504
P-value	0.005		0.247
Bonferroni post hoc analysisa	A (P=0.287)		A (P=0.372)
	B (P=0.004)		B (P=1.000)
	C (P=0.032)		C (P=1.000)
BBS
Baseline	44.84	10.67	45.66	10.64	0.761
Month 3	45.47	10.29	45.94	10.64	0.858
Month 6	46.97	10.56	44.19	11.57	0.319
P-value	0.005		0.222
Bonferroni post hoc analysisa	A (P=0.408)		A (P=1.000)
	B (P=0.005)		B (P=0.746)
	C (P=0.007)		C (P=0.416)

Notes: A= baseline vs month 3; B= baseline vs month 6; C= month 3 vs month 6;

a Significant at P<0.05;

b Paired t-test. All variables were analyzed using independent t-test and repeated measures ANOVA.

Abbreviations: BBS, Berg Balance Scale; TUG, Timed Up and Go.

CT Asia Robotics Co. L.Dinsow Mini 2012–2012 Available from: http://www.ctasiarobotics.com/home/index.phpAccessed June 12, 2018

 Google Scholar