The causes of falls: views of older people with sight impairment

Background Sight impairment increases with age and, compared with the general older population, older people with sight impairment are more likely to fall. There is a growing body of evidence on the views and perceptions of older people about falls, but little is published on the views of older people with sight impairment. Objective To explore what older people with sight impairment believe to be the causes of falls. Design A qualitative design was used, incorporating focus groups and interviews in which participants discussed falls and falls prevention. Framework analysis was employed to identify themes arising from participants' discussions of the causes of falls. Setting and participants Fifty-four community dwelling men and women with sight impairment, aged 65 and over, were recruited from across Greater Manchester, UK. Results Five types of factors were identified that were believed to cause falls: (i) health issues and changes in balance caused by ageing; (ii) cognitive and behavioural factors; (iii) the impact of sight impairment on getting around the home; (iv) the impact of sight impairment on negotiating the environment away from home; and (v) unexplained falls. Discussion and conclusions Older people with sight impairment reported many researched risk factors previously identified by older people without sight impairment but also described many perceived risks unique to people with sight impairment. There are few interventions to prevent falls aimed at older people with sight impairment, and the results of this study allow further tailoring of such interventions based on views of older people with sight impairment

A feasibility study to prevent falls in older people who are sight impaired: the VIP2UK randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Published evaluations of successful interventions to prevent falls in people with sight impairment (SI) are limited. The aim of this feasibility study is to optimise the design and investigation of home safety (HS) and home exercise (HE) programmes to prevent falls in older people with SI. METHODS: A community-based feasibility study in north-west England comprising a three-arm randomised controlled trial (RCT) allocated participants to (1) a control group receiving usual care and social visits, (2) an experimental group receiving the HS programme and (3) an experimental group receiving the HS + HE programme. Participants were community-dwelling, aged 65 years and older and sight impaired. Primary outcome data on falls were collected continuously over 6 months. Secondary outcomes on physical activity (self-report and instrumented) and adherence were collected at baseline and 3 and 6 months for HE and at 6 months for the HS programme. Costs for the HS and HS + HE groups were calculated from logs of time spent on home visits, telephone calls and travel. The research assistant and statistician were blinded to group allocation. RESULTS: Altogether, 49 people were recruited over a 9-month period (randomised: 16 to control, 16 to HS, 17 to HS + HE). The interventions were implemented over 6 months by an occupational therapist at a cost per person (pounds sterling, 2011) of £249 (HS) and £674 (HS + HE). Eighty-eight percent (43/49) completed the trial and 6-month follow-up. At 6-month follow-up, 100 % reported partially or completely adhering to HS recommendations but evidence for adherence to HE was equivocal. Although self-reported physical activity increased, instrumented monitoring showed a decrease in walking activity. There were no statistically significant differences in falls between the groups; however, the study was not powered to detect a difference. CONCLUSION: It is feasible and acceptable for an occupational therapist to deliver HS and HE falls prevention programmes to people with SI living independently in the community. Future studies could access Local Authority Registers of people with SI to improve recruitment rates. Further research is required to identify how to improve adherence to HE and to measure changes in physical activity before conducting a definitive RCT. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN53433311 , registered on 8 May 2014

Predicting cancer patients' participation in support groups: a longitudinal study.

OBJECTIVE: Few patients participate in cancer support groups despite their benefits. This study investigated the importance of Theory of Planned Behaviour variables in predicting group participation, relative to disease impact, existing support, coping and demographic variables. METHODS: Longitudinal study of patients with colorectal, lung or prostate cancer recruited from a specialist oncology centre. Patients self-completed surveys at baseline and six-month follow up. Baseline measures included Theory of Planned Behaviour (TPB) variables, distress and control over cancer (IPQ-R), coping (Brief COPE), social support (MSPSS), health related quality of life (EORTC QLQ-C30) and readiness to participate (PAPM). Group participation and recommendations to participate were measured at follow up. Univariable and Random Forest analyses investigated predictors of baseline readiness to participate and participation by six-month follow up. RESULTS: N=192 patients completed baseline questionnaires. N=13 participated in a group and N=59 did not by six-month follow up. Baseline readiness to participate was associated with inadequate support and positive views of support groups. Lower cognitive functioning, recommendations and readiness to participate predicted group participation by six-month follow up. CONCLUSION AND PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: Practitioners may facilitate group participation by promoting positive views of groups, recommending participation and focusing on patients experiencing greater disease impact and less existing support

Risk-of-bias assessment using RoB2 was useful but challenging and resource-intensive: observations from a systematic review.

To report our experience using Version 2 of the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool for randomised trials (RoB2). Two reviewers independently applied RoB2 to results of interest in a large systematic review of complex interventions and reached consensus. We recorded time taken, and noted and discussed our difficulties using the tool, and the resolutions we adopted. We explored time taken with regression analysis and summarised our experience of implementing the tool. We assessed risk of bias in 860 results of interest in 113 studies. Staff resource averaged 358 minutes per study (SD 183). Number of results (β=22) and reports (β=14) per study and experience of the team (β=-6) significantly affected assessment time. To implement the tool consistently we developed cut-points for missingness and considerations of balance regarding missingness, assumed some concerns with intervention deviations unless otherwise prevented or investigated, some concerns with measurements from unblinded self-reporting participants, and judged low risk of selection for certain dichotomous outcomes despite the absence of an analysis plan. The RoB2 tool and guidance are useful but resource-intensive and challenging to implement. Critical appraisal tools and reporting guidelines should detail risk-of-bias implementation. Improved guidance focussing on implementation could assist reviewers. [Abstract copyright: Copyright © 2023 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Community based complex interventions to sustain independence in older people: systematic review and network meta-analysis

To synthesise evidence of the effectiveness of community based complex interventions, grouped according to their intervention components, to sustain independence for older people. Systematic review and network meta-analysis. Medline, Embase, CINAHL, PsycINFO, CENTRAL, clinicaltrials.gov, and International Clinical Trials Registry Platform from inception to 9 August 2021 and reference lists of included studies. Randomised controlled trials or cluster randomised controlled trials with ≥24 weeks' follow-up studying community based complex interventions for sustaining independence in older people (mean age ≥65 years) living at home, with usual care, placebo, or another complex intervention as comparators. Living at home, activities of daily living (personal/instrumental), care home placement, and service/economic outcomes at 12 months. Interventions were grouped according to a specifically developed typology. Random effects network meta-analysis estimated comparative effects; Cochrane's revised tool (RoB 2) structured risk of bias assessment. Grading of recommendations assessment, development and evaluation (GRADE) network meta-analysis structured certainty assessment. The review included 129 studies (74 946 participants). Nineteen intervention components, including "multifactorial action from individualised care planning" (a process of multidomain assessment and management leading to tailored actions), were identified in 63 combinations. For living at home, compared with no intervention/placebo, evidence favoured multifactorial action from individualised care planning including medication review and regular follow-ups (routine review) (odds ratio 1.22, 95% confidence interval 0.93 to 1.59; moderate certainty); multifactorial action from individualised care planning including medication review without regular follow-ups (2.55, 0.61 to 10.60; low certainty); combined cognitive training, medication review, nutritional support, and exercise (1.93, 0.79 to 4.77; low certainty); and combined activities of daily living training, nutritional support, and exercise (1.79, 0.67 to 4.76; low certainty). Risk screening or the addition of education and self-management strategies to multifactorial action from individualised care planning and routine review with medication review may reduce odds of living at home. For instrumental activities of daily living, evidence favoured multifactorial action from individualised care planning and routine review with medication review (standardised mean difference 0.11, 95% confidence interval 0.00 to 0.21; moderate certainty). Two interventions may reduce instrumental activities of daily living: combined activities of daily living training, aids, and exercise; and combined activities of daily living training, aids, education, exercise, and multifactorial action from individualised care planning and routine review with medication review and self-management strategies. For personal activities of daily living, evidence favoured combined exercise, multifactorial action from individualised care planning, and routine review with medication review and self-management strategies (0.16, -0.51 to 0.82; low certainty). For homecare recipients, evidence favoured addition of multifactorial action from individualised care planning and routine review with medication review (0.60, 0.32 to 0.88; low certainty). High risk of bias and imprecise estimates meant that most evidence was low or very low certainty. Few studies contributed to each comparison, impeding evaluation of inconsistency and frailty. The intervention most likely to sustain independence is individualised care planning including medicines optimisation and regular follow-up reviews resulting in multifactorial action. Homecare recipients may particularly benefit from this intervention. Unexpectedly, some combinations may reduce independence. Further research is needed to investigate which combinations of interventions work best for different participants and contexts. PROSPERO CRD42019162195. [Abstract copyright: © Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2019. Re-use permitted under CC BY. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.