Search

Background: Falls are a major cause of injury and death among older people. Evidence suggests that people with osteoarthritis (OA) are at a higher risk of falls and fall-related injuries including fractures. While studies demonstrate a link between OA and falls, little is known about the pathways that link falls with demographic factors, OA impairments, activity limitations and participation restrictions. The aim of this study was to identify risk factors for falls and fractures among people with OA or at high risk of developing OA using the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF) framework., Methods: A longitudinal analysis of data from the Osteoarthritis Initiative (OAI) dataset was undertaken. Participants were considered to have OA if they reported they had been diagnosed with knee or hip OA by a medical practitioner. Outcomes were self-reported falls and fractures. Potential predictors were classified using the ICF framework. Poisson regression models were used to determine the risk factors for falls and fractures., Results: Of the 4796 participants, 2270 (47%) were diagnosed with knee and/or hip OA. A higher proportion of participants with OA reported having had falls (72% vs 63%; p < 0.0001) and fractures (17% vs 14%; p = 0.012) than those without OA. Personal factors were found to be stronger predictors of falls and fractures compared to OA impairments, activity limitations and participation restrictions in this sample of participants. After adjusting for potential covariates, self-reported history of falls was a significant predictor of both increased falls (incidence rate ratio [IRR] 1.50; 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.40, 4.60) and fracture risk (IRR 1.38; 95% CI 1.13, 1.69)., Conclusions: By applying the ICF framework, we have shown that personal factors were more likely to predict falls and fractures rather than OA impairments, environmental factors, activity limitations and participation restrictions in people with OA or at high risk of developing OA. This highlights the importance of questioning patients about their previous falls and past medical history, and using this information to focus our assessment and clinical decision-making processes.

Background: RESPOND is a telephone-based falls prevention program for older people who present to a hospital emergency department (ED) with a fall. A randomised controlled trial (RCT) found RESPOND to be effective at reducing the rate of falls and fractures, compared with usual care, but not fall injuries or hospitalisations. This process evaluation aimed to determine whether RESPOND was implemented as planned, and identify implementation barriers and facilitators., Methods: A mixed-methods evaluation was conducted alongside the RCT. Evaluation participants were the RESPOND intervention group (n = 263) and the clinicians delivering RESPOND (n = 7). Evaluation data were collected from participant recruitment and intervention records, hospital administrative records, audio-recordings of intervention sessions, and participant questionnaires. The Rochester Participatory Decision-Making Scale (RPAD) was used to evaluate person-centredness (score range 0 (worst) - 9 (best)). Process factors were compared with pre-specified criteria to determine implementation fidelity. Six focus groups were held with participants (n = 41), and interviews were conducted with RESPOND clinicians (n = 6). Quantitative data were analysed descriptively and qualitative data thematically. Barriers and facilitators to implementation were mapped to the 'Capability, Opportunity, Motivation - Behaviour' (COM-B) behaviour change framework., Results: RESPOND was implemented at a lower dose than the planned 10 h over 6 months, with a median (IQR) of 2.9 h (2.1, 4). The majority (76%) of participants received their first intervention session within 1 month of hospital discharge with a median (IQR) of 18 (12, 30) days. Clinicians delivered the program in a person-centred manner with a median (IQR) RPAD score of 7 (6.5, 7.5) and 87% of questionnaire respondents were satisfied with the program. The reports from participants and clinicians suggested that implementation was facilitated by the use of positive and personally relevant health messages. Complex health and social issues were the main barriers to implementation., Conclusions: RESPOND was person-centred and reduced falls and fractures at a substantially lower dose, using fewer resources, than anticipated. However, the low dose delivered may account for the lack of effect on falls injuries and hospitalisations. The results from this evaluation provide detailed information to guide future implementation of RESPOND or similar programs., Trial Registration: This study was registered with the Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry, number ACTRN12614000336684 (27 March 2014).

Background: Health literacy is an important concept associated with participation in preventive health initiatives, such as falls prevention programs. A comprehensive health literacy measurement tool, appropriate for this population, is required. The aim of this study was to evaluate the measurement properties of the Health Literacy Questionnaire (HLQ) in a cohort of older adults who presented to a hospital emergency department (ED) after a fall., Methods: Older adults who presented to an ED after a fall had their health literacy assessed using the HLQ (n = 433). Data were collected as part of a multi-centre randomised controlled trial of a falls prevention program. Measurement properties of the HLQ were assessed using Rasch analysis., Results: All nine scales of the HLQ were unidimensional, with good internal consistency reliability. No item bias was found for most items (43 of 44). A degree of overall misfit to the Rasch model was evident for six of the nine HLQ scales. The majority of misfit indicated content overlap between some items and does not compromise measurement. A measurement gap was identified for this cohort at mid to high HLQ score., Conclusions: The HLQ demonstrated good measurement properties in a cohort of older adults who presented to an ED after a fall. The summation of the HLQ items within each scale, providing unbiased information on nine separate areas of health literacy, is supported. Clinicians, researchers and policy makers may have confidence using the HLQ scale scores to gain information about health literacy in older people presenting to the ED after a fall., Trial Registration: This study was registered with the Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry, number ACTRN12614000336684 (27 March 2014).

Background: When tested in a randomized controlled trial (RCT) of 31,411 patients, the nurse-led 6-PACK falls prevention program did not reduce falls. Poor implementation fidelity (i.e., program not implemented as intended) may explain this result. Despite repeated calls for the examination of implementation fidelity as an essential component of evaluating interventions designed to improve the delivery of care, it has been neglected in prior falls prevention studies. This study examined implementation fidelity of the 6-PACK program during a large multi-site RCT., Methods: Based on the 6-PACK implementation framework and intervention description, implementation fidelity was examined by quantifying adherence to program components and organizational support. Adherence indicators were: 1) falls-risk tool completion; and for patients classified as high-risk, provision of 2) a 'Falls alert' sign; and 3) at least one additional 6-PACK intervention. Organizational support indicators were: 1) provision of resources (executive sponsorship, site clinical leaders and equipment); 2) implementation activities (modification of patient care plans; training; implementation tailoring; audits, reminders and feedback; and provision of data); and 3) program acceptability. Data were collected from daily bedside observation, medical records, resource utilization diaries and nurse surveys., Results: All seven intervention components were delivered on the 12 intervention wards. Program adherence data were collected from 103,398 observations and medical record audits. The falls-risk tool was completed each day for 75% of patients. Of the 38% of patients classified as high-risk, 79% had a 'Falls alert' sign and 63% were provided with at least one additional 6-PACK intervention, as recommended. All hospitals provided the recommended resources and undertook the nine outlined program implementation activities. Most of the nurses surveyed considered program components important for falls prevention., Conclusions: While implementation fidelity was variable across wards, overall it was found to be acceptable during the RCT. Implementation failure is unlikely to be a key factor for the observed lack of program effectiveness in the 6-PACK trial., Trial Registration: The 6-PACK cluster RCT is registered with the Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry, number ACTRN12611000332921 (29 March 2011).