Defective Assistive Device Involvement in Older Adult Emergency Department Visits.

Background and Objectives: Many older adults adopt equipment to address physical limitations and reduce dependence on others to complete basic activities of daily living. Although a few prior studies have considered injuries associated with assistive devices for older adults, those studies focused on older adults' health and functional risks for injury. There is limited analysis of older adult injuries involving defective or malfunctioning assistive devices. Research Design and Methods: Data from this study are from the National Electronic Surveillance System All Injury Program which collected data on consumer product-related injuries from a probability sample of 66 hospital Emergency Departments across the United States. Data from 30 776 older adult Emergency Department (ED) injury narratives from 2016 to 2020 were coded according to the assistive device involved and whether malfunctioning led to the injury. The study team manually examined all narratives in which the assistive device was coded to have malfunctioned. Results: A total of 10 974 older adult ED cases were treated for 12 488 injuries involving a defective device. Injuries included 4 212 head and neck injuries (eg, concussion), 4 317 trunk injuries (eg, hip fractures), and 3 959 arm or leg injuries (eg, leg fracture). Of these patients, 4 586 were admitted to a hospital ward for further evaluation and treatment. Seventy percent of these patients were injured while using a walker; in contrast, wheelchairs were implicated in only 4% of the above cases. Design flaws were identified in 8 158 cases and part breakage/decoupling incidents in 2 816 cases. Discussion and Implications: Our findings provide evidence that assistive devices are actively involved in older adult injuries. Further research is needed to reduce injuries associated with assistive devices by educating patients and their careproviders about device use and assembly and developing effective methods for informing manufacturers about malfunctioning devices.

Safety Concerns in Mobility-Assistive Products for Older Adults: Content Analysis of Online Reviews.

BACKGROUND: Older adults who have difficulty moving around are commonly advised to adopt mobility-assistive devices to prevent injuries. However, limited evidence exists on the safety of these devices. Existing data sources such as the National Electronic Injury Surveillance System tend to focus on injury description rather than the underlying context, thus providing little to no actionable information regarding the safety of these devices. Although online reviews are often used by consumers to assess the safety of products, prior studies have not explored consumer-reported injuries and safety concerns within online reviews of mobility-assistive devices. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to investigate injury types and contexts stemming from the use of mobility-assistive devices, as reported by older adults or their caregivers in online reviews. It not only identified injury severities and mobility-assistive device failure pathways but also shed light on the development of safety information and protocols for these products. METHODS: Reviews concerning assistive devices were extracted from the "assistive aid" categories, which are typically intended for older adult use, on Amazon's US website. The extracted reviews were filtered so that only those pertaining to mobility-assistive devices (canes, gait or transfer belts, ramps, walkers or rollators, and wheelchairs or transport chairs) were retained. We conducted large-scale content analysis of these 48,886 retained reviews by coding them according to injury type (no injury, potential future injury, minor injury, and major injury) and injury pathway (device critical component breakage or decoupling; unintended movement; instability; poor, uneven surface handling; and trip hazards). Coding efforts were carried out across 2 separate phases in which the team manually verified all instances coded as minor injury, major injury, or potential future injury and established interrater reliability to validate coding efforts. RESULTS: The content analysis provided a better understanding of the contexts and conditions leading to user injury, as well as the severity of injuries associated with these mobility-assistive devices. Injury pathways-device critical component failures; unintended device movement; poor, uneven surface handling; instability; and trip hazards-were identified for 5 product types (canes, gait and transfer belts, ramps, walkers and rollators, and wheelchairs and transport chairs). Outcomes were normalized per 10,000 posting counts (online reviews) mentioning minor injury, major injury, or potential future injury by product category. Overall, per 10,000 reviews, 240 (2.4%) described mobility-assistive equipment-related user injuries, whereas 2318 (23.18%) revealed potential future injuries. CONCLUSIONS: This study highlights mobility-assistive device injury contexts and severities, suggesting that consumers who posted online reviews attribute most serious injuries to a defective item, rather than user misuse. It implies that many mobility-assistive device injuries may be preventable through patient and caregiver education on how to evaluate new and existing equipment for risk of potential future injury.

Formal definition of the MARS method for quantifying the unique target class discoveries of selected machine classifiers.

Conventional binary classification performance metrics evaluate either general measures (accuracy, F score) or specific aspects (precision, recall) of a model's classifying ability. As such, these metrics, derived from the model's confusion matrix, provide crucial insight regarding classifier-data interactions. However, modern- day computational capabilities have allowed for the creation of increasingly complex models that share nearly identical classification performance. While traditional performance metrics remain as essential indicators of a classifier's individual capabilities, their ability to differentiate between models is limited. In this paper, we present the methodology for MARS (Method for Assessing Relative Sensitivity/ Specificity) ShineThrough and MARS Occlusion scores, two novel binary classification performance metrics, designed to quantify the distinctiveness of a classifier's predictive successes and failures, relative to alternative classifiers. Being able to quantitatively express classifier uniqueness adds a novel classifier-classifier layer to the process of model evaluation and could improve ensemble model-selection decision making. By calculating both conventional performance measures, and proposed MARS metrics for a simple classifier prediction dataset, we demonstrate that the proposed metrics' informational strengths synergize well with those of traditional metrics, delivering insight complementary to that of conventional metrics.

Injury prevention for older adults: A dataset of safety concern narratives from online reviews of mobility-related products.

Older adults are among the fastest-growing demographic groups in the United States, increasing by over a third this past decade. Consequently, the older adult consumer product market has quickly become a multi-billion-dollar industry in which millions of products are sold every year. However, the rapidly growing market raises the potential for an increasing number of product safety concerns and consumer product-related injuries among older adults. Recent manufacturer and consumer injury prevention efforts have begun to turn towards online reviews, as these provide valuable information from which actionable, timely intelligence can be derived and used to detect safety concerns and prevent injury. The presented dataset contains 1966 curated online product reviews from consumers, equally distributed between safety concerns and non-concerns, pertaining to product categories typically intended for older adults. Identified safety concerns were manually sub-coded across thirteen dimensions designed to capture relevant aspects of the consumer's experience with the purchased product, facilitate the safety concern identification and sub-classification process, and serve as a gold-standard, balanced dataset for text classifier learning.