Process factors explaining the ineffectiveness of a multidisciplinary fall prevention programme: A process evaluation

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Falls are a major health threat to older community-living people, and initiatives to prevent falls should be a public health priority. We evaluated a Dutch version of a successful British fall prevention programme. Results of this Dutch study showed no effects on falls or daily functioning. In parallel to the effect evaluation, we carried out a detailed process evaluation to assess the feasibility of our multidisciplinary fall prevention programme. The present study reports on the results of this process evaluation.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>Our fall prevention programme comprised a medical and occupational-therapy assessment, resulting in recommendations and/or referrals to other services if indicated. We used self-administered questionnaires, structured telephone interviews, structured recording forms, structured face-to-face interviews and a plenary group discussion to collect data from participants allocated to the intervention group (n = 166) and from all practitioners who performed the assessments (n = 8). The following outcomes were assessed: the extent to which the multidisciplinary fall prevention programme was performed according to protocol, the nature of the recommendations and referrals provided to the participants, participants' self-reported compliance and participants' and practitioners' opinions about the programme.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Both participants and practitioners judged the programme to be feasible. The programme was largely performed according to protocol. The number of referrals and recommendations ensuing from the medical assessment was relatively small. Participants' self-reported compliance as regards contacting their GP to be informed of the recommendations and/or referrals was low to moderate. However, self-reported compliance with such referrals and recommendations was reasonable to good. A large majority of participants reported they had benefited from the programme.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>The results of the present study show that the programme was feasible for both practitioners and participants. Main factors that seem to be responsible for the lack of effectiveness are the relatively low number of referrals and recommendations ensuing from the medical assessments and participants' low compliance as regards contacting their GP about the results of the medical assessment. We do not recommend implementing the programme in its present form in regular care.</p> <p>Trial registration</p> <p>ISRCTN64716113</p

Characterisation of barley resistance to rhynchosporium on chromosome 6HS

Key Message: Major resistance gene to rhynchosporium, Rrs18, maps close to the telomere on the short arm of chromosome 6H in barley. Rhynchosporium or barley scald caused by a fungal pathogen Rhynchosporium commune is one of the most destructive and economically important diseases of barley in the world. Testing of Steptoe × Morex and CIho 3515 × Alexis doubled haploid populations has revealed a large effect QTL for resistance to R. commune close to the telomere on the short arm of chromosome 6H, present in both populations. Mapping markers flanking the QTL from both populations onto the 2017 Morex genome assembly revealed a rhynchosporium resistance locus independent of Rrs13 that we named Rrs18. The causal gene was fine mapped to an interval of 660 Kb using Steptoe × Morex backcross 1 S₂ and S₃ lines with molecular markers developed from Steptoe exome capture variant calling. Sequencing RNA from CIho 3515 and Alexis revealed that only 4 genes within the Rrs18 interval were transcribed in leaf tissue with a serine/threonine protein kinase being the most likely candidate for Rrs18.Max Coulter, Bianca Büttner, Kerstin Hofmann, Micha Bayer, Luke Ramsay, Günther Schweizer, Robbie Waugh, Mark E. Looseley, Anna Avrov

QCD and strongly coupled gauge theories : challenges and perspectives

We highlight the progress, current status, and open challenges of QCD-driven physics, in theory and in experiment. We discuss how the strong interaction is intimately connected to a broad sweep of physical problems, in settings ranging from astrophysics and cosmology to strongly coupled, complex systems in particle and condensed-matter physics, as well as to searches for physics beyond the Standard Model. We also discuss how success in describing the strong interaction impacts other fields, and, in turn, how such subjects can impact studies of the strong interaction. In the course of the work we offer a perspective on the many research streams which flow into and out of QCD, as well as a vision for future developments.Peer reviewe

A mixed methods process evaluation of a person-centred falls prevention program

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 hours over six months, with a median (IQR) of 2.9 hours (2.1, 4). The majority (76%) of participants received their first intervention session within one month of hospital discharge. 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 of similar programs. Trial registration: This study was registered with the Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry, number ACTRN12614000336684 (27 March 2014)