Search

Abstract Background Interventions for preventing falls in older people often involve several components, multidisciplinary teams, and implementation in a variety of settings. We have developed a classification system (taxonomy) to describe interventions used to prevent falls in older people, with the aim of improving the design and reporting of clinical trials of fall-prevention interventions, and synthesis of evidence from these trials. Methods Thirty three international experts in falls prevention and health services research participated in a series of meetings to develop consensus. Robust techniques were used including literature reviews, expert presentations, and structured consensus workshops moderated by experienced facilitators. The taxonomy was refined using an international test panel of five health care practitioners. We assessed the chance corrected agreement of the final version by comparing taxonomy completion for 10 randomly selected published papers describing a variety of fall-prevention interventions. Results The taxonomy consists of four domains, summarized as the "Approach", "Base", "Components" and "Descriptors" of an intervention. Sub-domains include; where participants are identified; the theoretical approach of the intervention; clinical targeting criteria; details on assessments; descriptions of the nature and intensity of interventions. Chance corrected agreement of the final version of the taxonomy was good to excellent for all items. Further independent evaluation of the taxonomy is required. Conclusions The taxonomy is a useful instrument for characterizing a broad range of interventions used in falls prevention. Investigators are encouraged to use the taxonomy to report their interventions.

Background: This paper describes the design and development of a complex multifactorial falls prevention (MFFP) intervention for implementation and testing within the framework of a large UK-based falls prevention randomised controlled trial (RCT).Methods: A complex intervention was developed for inclusion within the Prevention of Falls Injury Trial (PreFIT), a multicentre pragmatic RCT. PreFIT aims to compare the clinical and cost-effectiveness of three alternative primary care falls prevention interventions (advice, exercise and MFFP), on outcomes of fractures and falls. Community-dwelling adults, aged 70 years and older, were recruited from primary care in the National Health Service (NHS), England.Results: Development of the PreFIT MFFP intervention was informed by the existing evidence base and clinical guidelines for the assessment and management of falls in older adults. After piloting and modification, the final MFFP intervention includes seven falls risk factors: a detailed falls history interview with consideration of 'red flags'; assessment of balance and gait; vision; medication screen; cardiac screen; feet and footwear screen and home environment assessment. This complex intervention has been fully manualised with clear, documented assessment and treatment pathways for each risk factor. Each risk factor is assessed in every trial participant referred for MFFP. Referral for assessment is based upon a screening survey to identify those with a history of falling or balance problems. Intervention delivery can be adapted to the local setting.Conclusion: This complex falls prevention intervention is currently being tested within the framework of a large clinical trial. This paper adheres to TIDieR and CONSORT recommendations for the comprehensive and explicit reporting of trial interventions. Results from the PreFIT study will be published in due course. The effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of the PreFIT MFFP intervention, compared to advice and exercise, on the prevention of falls and fractures, will be reported at the conclusion of the trial. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Interventions for preventing falls in older people often involve several components, multidisciplinary teams, and implementation in a variety of settings. We have developed a classification system (taxonomy) to describe interventions used to prevent falls in older people, with the aim of improving the design and reporting of clinical trials of fall-prevention interventions, and synthesis of evidence from these trials.Methods: Thirty three international experts in falls prevention and health services research participated in a series of meetings to develop consensus. Robust techniques were used including literature reviews, expert presentations, and structured consensus workshops moderated by experienced facilitators. The taxonomy was refined using an international test panel of five health care practitioners. We assessed the chance corrected agreement of the final version by comparing taxonomy completion for 10 randomly selected published papers describing a variety of fall-prevention interventions.Results: The taxonomy consists of four domains, summarized as the "Approach", "Base", "Components" and "Descriptors" of an intervention. Sub-domains include; where participants are identified; the theoretical approach of the intervention; clinical targeting criteria; details on assessments; descriptions of the nature and intensity of interventions. Chance corrected agreement of the final version of the taxonomy was good to excellent for all items. Further independent evaluation of the taxonomy is required.Conclusions: The taxonomy is a useful instrument for characterizing a broad range of interventions used in falls prevention. Investigators are encouraged to use the taxonomy to report their interventions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Community screening and therapeutic prevention strategies may reduce the incidence of falls in older people. The effects of these measures on the incidence of fractures, the use of health resources, and health-related quality of life are unknown., Methods: In a pragmatic, three-group, cluster-randomized, controlled trial, we estimated the effect of advice sent by mail, risk screening for falls, and targeted interventions (multifactorial fall prevention or exercise for people at increased risk for falls) as compared with advice by mail only. The primary outcome was the rate of fractures per 100 person-years over 18 months. Secondary outcomes were falls, health-related quality of life, frailty, and a parallel economic evaluation., Results: We randomly selected 9803 persons 70 years of age or older from 63 general practices across England: 3223 were assigned to advice by mail alone, 3279 to falls-risk screening and targeted exercise in addition to advice by mail, and 3301 to falls-risk screening and targeted multifactorial fall prevention in addition to advice by mail. A falls-risk screening questionnaire was sent to persons assigned to the exercise and multifactorial fall-prevention groups. Completed screening questionnaires were returned by 2925 of the 3279 participants (89%) in the exercise group and by 2854 of the 3301 participants (87%) in the multifactorial fall-prevention group. Of the 5779 participants from both these groups who returned questionnaires, 2153 (37%) were considered to be at increased risk for falls and were invited to receive the intervention. Fracture data were available for 9802 of the 9803 participants. Screening and targeted intervention did not result in lower fracture rates; the rate ratio for fracture with exercise as compared with advice by mail was 1.20 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.91 to 1.59), and the rate ratio with multifactorial fall prevention as compared with advice by mail was 1.30 (95% CI, 0.99 to 1.71). The exercise strategy was associated with small gains in health-related quality of life and the lowest overall costs. There were three adverse events (one episode of angina, one fall during a multifactorial fall-prevention assessment, and one hip fracture) during the trial period., Conclusions: Advice by mail, screening for fall risk, and a targeted exercise or multifactorial intervention to prevent falls did not result in fewer fractures than advice by mail alone. (Funded by the National Institute of Health Research; ISRCTN number, ISRCTN71002650.)., (Copyright © 2020 Massachusetts Medical Society.)

Objectives: To identify the components, and assess the reporting quality, of exercise training interventions for people living with pulmonary hypertension., Design: Systematic review with analysis of intervention reporting quality using the Consensus on Exercise Reporting Template (CERT)., Data Sources: Eligible studies in the Cochrane Systematic Review of exercise-based rehabilitation for pulmonary hypertension, updated with a new search of relevant databases from 1 August 2016 to 15 January 2018., Eligibility Criteria: Peer-reviewed journal articles of randomised and non-randomised controlled trials, and non-controlled prospective observational studies, investigating dynamic exercise training interventions in adult humans with diagnosed pulmonary hypertension, reporting on at least one physiological and/or psychosocial outcome., Results: Interventions typically involved cycle ergometry and walking. They were delivered as 3-week inpatient, or outpatient and/or home-based programmes, lasting for 4-15 weeks. Components relating specifically to exercise prescription were described satisfactorily and in more detail than motivational/behavioural change strategies, adherence and fidelity. Mean CERT score was 13.1 (range 8-17) out of a possible maximum score of 19. No studies fully reported every aspect of an exercise intervention to the standard recommended by CERT., Summary/conclusion: Considerable variability was evident in the components and reporting quality of interventions for exercise rehabilitation studies in pulmonary hypertension. Interventional studies using exercise training should pay greater attention to describing motivational/behavioural change strategies, adherence and fidelity. Detailed description of these parameters is essential for the safe and effective replication of exercise rehabilitation interventions for pulmonary hypertension in clinical practice., Trial Registration Number: CRD42018085558., Competing Interests: Competing interests: MU has received multiple research grants as chief investigator or co-investigator from the National Institute of Health Research and Arthritis Research UK. He is a shareholder and director in Clinvivo Ltd. He is co-investigator on an NIHR funded trial in which ORTHOSPACE Ltd is providing training and surgical implants. He is part of an academic partnership involving Serco Ltd. GM is a director of Atrium Health Ltd.