Search

Background Core outcome sets are advocated as a means to standardize outcome reporting across randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and reduce selective outcome reporting. In 2005, the Prevention of Falls Network Europe (ProFaNE) published a core outcome set identifying five domains that should be measured and reported, at a minimum, in RCTs or meta-analysis on falls in older people. As reporting of all five domains of the ProFaNE core outcome set has been minimal, we set out to investigate factors associated with reporting of the ProFaNE core outcome set domains in a purposeful sample of RCTs on falls in older people. Methods We conducted a systematic citation analysis to identify all reports of RCTs focused on falls in older people that cited the ProFaNE core outcome set between October 2005 and July 2021. We abstracted author-level, study-level, and manuscript-level data and whether each domain of the ProFaNE core outcome set was reported. We used penalized LASSO regression to identify factors associated with the mean percentage of ProFaNE core outcome set domains reported. Results We identified 85 eligible reports of RCTs. Articles were published between 2007 and 2021, described 75 unique RCTs, and were authored by 76 unique corresponding authors. The percentage of ProFaNE core outcome set domains reported ranged from 0 to 100%, with a median of 40% and mean (standard deviation, SD) of 52.2% (25.1). RCTs funded by a non-industry source reported a higher mean percentage of domains than RCTs without a non-industry funding source (estimated mean difference = 17.5%; 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.8–33.2). RCTs examining exercise (15.4%; 95% CI 1.9–28.9) or multi-component/factorial (17.4%; 95% CI 4.7–30.1) interventions each reported a higher mean percentage of domains than RCTs examining other intervention types. Conclusions We found that RCTs funded by at least one non-industry source, examining exercise or multi-component/factorial interventions, reported the highest percentages of ProFaNE core outcome set domains. Findings may help inform strategies to increase the impact of the ProFaNE core outcome set. Ultimately, this may lead to enhanced knowledge of the effectiveness and safety of interventions to prevent and/or manage falls in older people.

Intersectionality is a widely adopted theoretical orientation in the field of women and gender studies. Intersectionality comes from the work of black feminist scholars and activists. Intersectionality argues identities such as gender, race, sexuality, and other markers of difference intersect and reflect large social structures of oppression and privilege, such as sexism, racism, and heteronormativity. The reach of intersectionality now extends to the fields of public health and knowledge translation. Knowledge translation (KT) is a field of study and practice that aims to synthesize and evaluate research into an evidence base and move that evidence into health care practice. There have been increasing calls to bring gender and other social issues into the field of KT. Yet, as scholars outline, there are few guidelines for incorporating the principles of intersectionality into empirical research. An interdisciplinary, team-based, national health research project in Canada aimed to bring an intersectional lens to the field of knowledge translation. This paper reports on key moments and resulting tensions we experienced through the project, which reflect debates in intersectionality: discomfort with social justice, disciplinary divides, and tokenism. We consider how our project advances intersectionality practice and suggests recommendations for using intersectionality in health research contexts. We argue that while we encountered many challenges, our process and the resulting co-created tools can serve as a valuable starting point and example of how intersectionality can transform fields and practices.

Background Research partnership approaches, in which researchers and stakeholders work together collaboratively on a research project, are an important component of research, knowledge translation, and implementation. Despite their growing use, a comprehensive understanding of the principles, strategies, outcomes, and impacts of different types of research partnerships is lacking. Generating high-quality evidence in this area is challenging due to the breadth and diversity of relevant literature. We established a Coordinated Multicenter Team approach to identify and synthesize the partnership literature and better understand the evidence base. This review protocol outlines an innovative approach to locating, reviewing, and synthesizing the literature on research partnerships. Methods Five reviews pertaining to research partnerships are proposed. The Coordinated Multicenter Team developed a consensus-driven conceptual framework to guide the reviews. First, a review of reviews will comparatively describe and synthesize key domains (principles, strategies, outcomes, and impacts) for different research partnership approaches, within and beyond health (e.g., integrated knowledge translation, participatory action research). After identifying commonly used search terminology, three complementary scoping reviews will describe and synthesize these domains in the health research partnership literature. Finally, an umbrella review will amalgamate and reflect on the collective findings and identify research gaps and future directions. We will develop a collaborative review methodology, comprising search strategy efficiencies, terminology standardization, and the division of screening, extraction, and synthesis to optimize feasibility and literature capture. A series of synthesis and scoping manuscripts will emerge from this Coordinated Multicenter Team approach. Discussion Comprehensively describing and differentiating research partnership terminology and its domains will address well-documented gaps in the literature. These efforts will contribute to and improve the quality, conduct, and reporting of research partnership literature. The collaborative review methodology will help identify and establish common terms, leverage efficiencies (e.g., expertise, experience, search and protocol design, resources) and optimize research feasibility and quality. Our approach allows for enhanced scope and inclusivity of all research user groups and domains, thereby contributing uniquely to the literature. This multicenter, efficiency and quality-focused approach may serve to inspire researchers across the globe in addressing similar domain challenges, as exist in this rapidly expanding field. Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (10.1186/s13643-018-0879-2) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

We asked what the role of the vestibular system is in adaptive control of locomotor trajectory in response to walking on a rotating disc. Subjects with bilateral vestibular loss (BVL) were compared to age- and gender-matched controls (CTRL). Subjects walked in place on the surface of a rotating disc for 15 min and then attempted to step in place without vision on a stationary surface for 30 min. CTRL subjects demonstrated podokinetic after-rotation (PKAR), involuntarily and unknowingly turning themselves in circles while attempting to step in place. PKAR in CTRLs was characterized by a rapid rise in turning velocity over the first 1-2 min, followed by a gradual decay over the remaining 28 min. Subjects with BVL also demonstrated PKAR and had no knowledge of their turning. However, PKAR in BVLs was characterized by an extremely rapid, essentially instantaneous rise. Subjects with BVL immediately turned at maximum velocity and exhibited a gradual decay throughout the entire 30 min period. Despite this difference in the initial portion of PKAR in BVLs, their responses were not significantly different from CTRLs during minutes 2 to 30 of the response. These results suggest that vestibular inputs normally suppress PKAR velocity over the first 1-2 min of the response, but do not greatly influence PKAR decay. PKAR is therefore a process mediated primarily by somatosensory information and vestibular inputs are not required for its expression. Additionally, the absence of vestibular inputs does not result in increased somatosensory sensitivity that alters podokinetic intensity or decay time constants.

Background and purpose The Six-Minute Walk Test (6MWT) has been employed as a measure of functional capacity, but its relationship to cardiorespiratory fitness in stroke is not well established. Gait speed measured over short distances is commonly used as an index of walking competency following stroke. We evaluated the relationship between the 6MWT, aerobic fitness (VO2peak) and walking competency in sub-acute stroke. Methods Thirty-six individuals (mean age ± SD, 64.6 ± 14.4 years; time post-stroke 16.2 ± 13.3 days) were evaluated using the 6MWT (distance, speed, heart rate), a maximal exercise test (VO2peak, heart rate, exercise test duration), and walking competency using a five meter walk (speed, symmetry ratio). Correlation analyses were used to examine the relationships between these outcomes. Results There was a strong correlation between the 6MWT and five meter walk velocity for preferred (r = 0.79) and fast (r = 0.82) speed (p < 0.001). On average, the 6MWT speed was faster than the preferred gait speed (94.9 cm/s vs. 83.8 cm/s, p = 0.003), but slower than the fast-paced walk (115.1 cm/s, p < 0.001). There was significant though more moderate association between 6MWT distance and VO2peak (r = 0.56, p < 0.001) and exercise test duration (r = 0.60, p < 0.001). Conclusion The speed selected during the 6MWT was strongly related to the velocities selected during the five meter walk distance (intermediate to the selected preferred and fast speeds). Although the 6MWT may be challenging to the cardiorespiratory system, it appears to be more strongly influenced by potential limits to walking speed rather than cardiorespiratory capacity. As a result, this test is not, by itself, an adequate measure of aerobic fitness early after stroke.