Search

Purpose of the Article: To (1) summarise the personal and clinical characteristics of persons with disabilities (PwDs) in the US who were evaluated for mobility assistive equipment (MAE) in the functional mobility assessment and uniform dataset (FMA/UDS) and (2) stratify subpopulations of PwD who reported falling versus those who do not report a fall., Materials and Methods: This study was a retrospective, descriptive cohort analysis of adults with disabilities using the FMA/UDS. Data are collected during a user's initial evaluation for a new mobility device. The sample is intentionally general to be inclusive of all mobility device users. The primary variable of interest was a patient-reported fall within the 3 months leading up to their evaluation for a new mobility device. Subpopulation characteristics were stratified by this binary fall variable., Results and Conclusions: This study provides descriptions of PwDs being evaluated for a new mobility device. There were 11,084 PwDs with 31 different primary diagnoses. During their new mobility device evaluation, 52.2% of PwDs reported at least one fall in the last 3 months. For those who reported a fall, 46.6% of PwDs were using a walking aid or no device at all before the new mobility device evaluation. Additionally, persons with progressively acquired disabilities (i.e., Parkinson's disease, osteoarthritis and cardiopulmonary disease) reported higher rates of falls than those with congenital disabilities (i.e., cerebral palsy and spina bifida). These findings will influence future studies comparing different types of devices and their influence on falls and user satisfaction.

Background and Objectives: Despite their limited benefits and serious adverse effects, psychotropics remain frequently prescribed for neuropsychiatric symptoms (NPS) of dementia. Psychotropic polypharmacy, the use of two or more concomitant psychotropic medications, is therefore not recommended for people with dementia. The objectives of this study were to investigate the prevalence of psychotropic polypharmacy in Australians living with dementia whose caregivers sought external NPS support from Dementia Support Australia (DSA; the national provider of NPS support) and the association of psychotropic polypharmacy with their demographics and NPS characteristics., Methods: A retrospective cross-sectional study of a subset of DSA referrals at baseline (i.e., yet to receive psychosocial intervention(s)) between 2016 and 2020 was conducted. Referrals with and without psychotropic polypharmacy were compared on the basis of demographic characteristics (e.g., sex, dementia subtype), NPS type (e.g., agitation), NPS severity and associated caregiver distress as measured by the Neuropsychiatric Inventory (NPI), using Pearson's chi-square test and Welch's t-test for categorical and continuous data, respectively. Logistic regression models were used to examine the relationship between individual NPI domains and exposure to psychotropic polypharmacy., Results: A total of 421 referrals (mean age 81.5 (standard deviation 8.5) years, 52.3% males, 46.8% Alzheimer's disease) were analysed. Of those, over 90% (n = 383) were prescribed at least one psychotropic, with 214 referrals (50.8%) prescribed psychotropic polypharmacy. The medication types most associated with psychotropic polypharmacy were antipsychotics (n = 162, 75.7%), opioids (n = 104, 48.6%), anxiolytics (n = 93, 43.5%), sedative/hypnotics (n = 52, 24.3%) and antidepressants (n = 47, 22.0%). No relationship between psychotropic polypharmacy and any variable tested was identified, including age, sex, dementia subtype and NPI severity., Conclusions: Psychotropic polypharmacy is highly prevalent in Australians living with dementia referred to external dementia-specific behaviour support programs, but no factors were associated with its presence in this cohort., Competing Interests: Declarations. Funding: Open Access funding enabled and organized by CAUL and its Member Institutions. No funding, grant, or financial support was specifically received for the preparation of this manuscript. Dementia Support Australia (DSA) programs are funded by the Australian Government (Department of Health) under the umbrella of the Dementia Aged Care Services (DACS) Fund since 2016. The funder had no role in: the design and conduct of the study; collection, management, analysis and interpretation of the data; preparation, review or approval of the manuscript; or the decision to submit the manuscript for publication. Conflict of Interest: M.A. is one of the originators of the PainChek® instrument, which is marketed by PainChek Ltd. (ASX: PCK). He is also a shareholder of PainChek Ltd. He previously held the position of a Senior Research Scientist (October 2018–May 2020) at PainChek Ltd. He had a granted patent titled “A pain assessment method and system; PCT/AU2015/000501” in China, Japan, the European Union and the USA, which was assigned to PainChek Ltd. The PainChek® instrument was not mentioned nor cited in this study. Three authors (M.A., D.W., T.M.) are staff members of The Dementia Centre; a research, education, and consultancy arm of HammondCare, an independent Christian charity which auspices the DSA programs. M.A. is a Research and Practice Lead (Team Leader) at The Dementia Centre, HammondCare. D.W. is a Data and Information Analyst at The Dementia Centre, HammondCare. T.M. is Head of Research and Information Excellence at The Dementia Centre, HammondCare. Other authors declare no conflict of interest. Ethics Approval and Consent to Participate: The study was approved by the human research committees of the University of New South Wales (HC190049), University of Sydney (2023/138), Edith Cowan University (2022-03715) and Curtin University (HRE2023-0069). The study also received institutional approval (R264) from the Research Governance Office of HammondCare. A waiver of informed consent was granted for the study as the data were analysed retrospectively and anonymously. The data were handled by a data custodian who complied with the Declaration of Helsinki of ethical principles, and the National Health and Medical Research Council’s National Statement on Ethical Conduct in Human Research (2018). Consent to Publish: A waiver of informed consent was granted as per the ethics approvals stated above. Code Availability: Not applicable. Availability of Data and Materials: All data used in this manuscript will remain confidential to comply with the conditions of service provision of Dementia Support Australia (DSA). Author Contributions: The authors contributed to the following tasks: conceptualisation: M.A., A.S.; methodology: M.A., A.S., D.W. and T.M.; data curation and data analysis: M.A., A.S., D.W. and T.M.; writing—original draft preparation: M.A., A.S., D.W. and T.M.; writing—review and editing: M.A., A.S., D.W., Y.P.L., C.M., G.N., E.W. and T.M.; resources: M.A., A.S., D.W. and T.M.; supervision: M.A., A.S., Y.P.L. and T.M.; and project administration: M.A., A.S. and T.M. All authors have read and approved the final submitted manuscript and agree to be accountable for the work., (© 2025. The Author(s).)