Search

Background: Balance and functional strength training can improve muscle strength and physical functioning outcomes and decrease the risk of falls in older adults. To maximize the benefits of strength training, adequate protein intake is also important. However, the number of older individuals that consume enough protein or routinely engage in strength training remains low at less than 5% and even lower for activities that challenge balance. Our primary aim was to assess the feasibility of implementing a model (MoveStrong) of service delivery to teach older adults about balance and functional strength training and methods to increase protein intake., Methods: This study was a closed cohort stepped wedge randomized controlled trial. We recruited individuals ≥60 years considered pre-frail or frail with at least one chronic condition who were not currently engaging in regular strength training from Northern (rural) and Southern (urban) Ontario sites in Canada. The primary outcome was feasibility of implementation, defined by recruitment, retention, and adherence, and safety (defined by monitoring adverse events). We also reported participants' and providers' experience with MoveStrong, adaptations to the model based on participant's and provider's experience, and program fidelity., Results: We recruited 44 participants to the study and the average adherence rate was 72% with a retention of 71%. The program had a high-fidelity score. One person experienced a fall-related injury during exercise, while two other participants reported pain during certain activities. Five individuals experienced injuries or health problems that were not related to the program. Suggestions for future trials include modifying some exercises, exploring volunteer assistance, increasing the diversity of participants enrolled, and considering a different study design., Conclusions: Our pilot trial demonstrates the feasibility of recruitment and adherence for a larger multisite RCT of balance and functional strength training with attention to protein intake in pre-frail and frail older adults., Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

Physical activity questionnaires exist, but effective implementation in primary care remains an issue. We sought to develop a physical activity screen (PAS) for electronic medical record (EMR) integration by 1) identifying healthcare professionals' (HCPs), patients' and stakeholders' barriers to and preferences for physical activity counselling in primary care; and 2) using the information to co-create the PAS. We conducted semi-structured interviews with primary care HCPs, patients and stakeholders, and used content and thematic analyses to inform iterative co-design of the PAS. Interviews with 38 participants (mean age 41 years) resulted in 2 themes: 1) HCPs are willing to conduct physical activity screening, but acknowledge they don't do it well; and 2) HCPs have limited opportunity and capacity to discuss physical activity, and need a streamlined process for EMR that goes beyond quantifying physical activity. HCPs, patients and stakeholders co-designed a physical activity screen for integration into the EMR that can be tested for feasibility and effects on HCP behaviour and patients' physical activity levels. Novelty: EMR-integration of physical activity screening needs to go beyond just asking about physical activity minutes. Primary care professionals have variable knowledge and time, and need physical activity counselling prompts and resources. We co-developed a physical activity EMR tool with patients and primary care providers.

Background: Current quality improvement tools for endoscopy services, such as the Global Rating Scale (GRS), emphasize the need for patient-centred care. However, there are no studies that have investigated patient expectations and/or perceptions of quality indicators in endoscopy services., Objectives: To identify quality indicators for colonoscopy services from the patient perspective; to rate indicators of importance; to determine factors that influence indicator ratings; and to compare the identified indicators with those of the GRS., Methods: A two-phase mixed methods study was undertaken in Montreal (Quebec), Calgary (Alberta) and Hamilton (Ontario) among patients ≥18 years of age who spoke and read English or French. In phase 1, focus group participants identified quality indicators that were then used to construct a survey questionnaire. In phase 2, survey questionnaires, which were completed immediately after colonoscopy, prompted respondents to rate the 20 focus group-derived indicators according to their level of importance (low, medium, high) and to list up to nine additional items. Multiple logistic regression analysis was used to determine the factors that influenced focus group-derived indicator ratings. Patient-identified indicators were compared with those used in the GRS to identify novel indicators., Results: Three quality indicator themes were identified by 66 participants in 12 focus groups: communication, comfort and service environment. Of the 828 surveys distributed, 402 (48.6%) were returned and 65% of focus group-derived indicators were rated highly important by at least 55% of survey respondents. Indicator ratings differed according to age, sex, site and perceived colorectal cancer risk. Of the 29 patient-identified indicators, 17 (58.6%) were novel., Conclusions: Patients identified 17 novel quality indicators, suggesting that patients and health professionals differ in their perspectives with respect to quality in colonoscopy services.