Multidisciplinary Views on Applying Explicit and Implicit Motor Learning in Practice: An International Survey

Background A variety of options and techniques for causing implicit and explicit motor learning have been described in the literature. The aim of the current paper was to provide clearer guidance for practitioners on how to apply motor learning in practice by exploring experts' opinions and experiences, using the distinction between implicit and explicit motor learning as a conceptual departure point. Methods A survey was designed to collect and aggregate informed opinions and experiences from 40 international respondents who had demonstrable expertise related to motor learning in practice and/or research. The survey was administered through an online survey tool and addressed potential options and learning strategies for applying implicit and explicit motor learning. Responses were analysed in terms of consensus (>= 70%) and trends (>= 50%). A summary figure was developed to illustrate a taxonomy of the different learning strategies and options indicated by the experts in the survey. Results Answers of experts were widely distributed. No consensus was found regarding the application of implicit and explicit motor learning. Some trends were identified: Explicit motor learning can be promoted by using instructions and various types of feedback, but when promoting implicit motor learning, instructions and feedback should be restricted. Further, for implicit motor learning, an external focus of attention should be considered, as well as practicing the entire skill. Experts agreed on three factors that influence motor learning choices: the learner's abilities, the type of task, and the stage of motor learning (94.5%; n = 34/36). Most experts agreed with the summary figure (64.7%; n = 22/34). Conclusion The results provide an overview of possible ways to cause implicit or explicit motor learning, signposting examples from practice and factors that influence day-to-day motor learning decisions.published_or_final_versio

Characteristics of outdoor falls among older people: A qualitative study

Background Falls are a major threat to older people’s health and wellbeing. Approximately half of falls occur in outdoor environments but little is known about the circumstances in which they occur. We conducted a qualitative study to explore older people’s experiences of outdoor falls to develop understanding of how they may be prevented. Methods We conducted nine focus groups across the UK (England, Wales, and Scotland). Our sample was from urban and rural settings and different environmental landscapes. Participants were aged 65+ and had at least one outdoor fall in the past year. We analysed the data using framework and content analyses. Results Forty-four adults aged 65 – 92 took part and reported their experience of 88 outdoor falls. Outdoor falls occurred in a variety of contexts, though reports suggested the following scenarios may have been more frequent: when crossing a road, in a familiar area, when bystanders were around, and with an unreported or unknown attribution. Most frequently, falls resulted in either minor or moderate injury, feeling embarrassed at the time of the fall, and anxiety about falling again. Ten falls resulted in fracture, but no strong pattern emerged in regard to the contexts of these falls. Anxiety about falling again appeared more prevalent among those that fell in urban settings and who made more visits into their neighbourhood in a typical week. Conclusions This exploratory study has highlighted several aspects of the outdoor environment that may represent risk factors for outdoor falls and associated fear of falling. Health professionals are recommended to consider outdoor environments as well as the home setting when working to prevent falls and increase mobility among older people

Validity of the Falls Risk for Older People in the Community (FROP‑Com) tool to predict falls and fall injuries for older people presenting to the emergency department after falling

The aims of this study were to (1) externally validate the accuracy of the Falls Risk for Older People in the Community (FROP-Com) falls risk assessment tool in predicting falls and (2) undertake initial validation of the accuracy of the FROPCom to predict injurious falls (requiring medical attention) in people aged ≥ 60 years presenting to emergency departments (EDs) after falling. Two hundred and thirteen participants (mean age = 72.4 years; 59.2% women) were recruited (control group of a randomised controlled trial). A FROP-Com assessment was completed at a home visit within 2 weeks of ED discharge. Data on falls and injurious falls requiring medical attention were collected via monthly falls calendars for the next 12 months. Predictive accuracy was evaluated using sensitivity and specificity of a high-risk FROP-Com classification (score ≥ 19) in predicting a fall and injurious falls requiring medical attention. Fifty per cent of participants fell, with 60.4% of falls requiring medical attention. Thirty-two per cent were classified as high, 49% as moderate and 19% low falls risk. Low sensitivity was achieved for the FROP-Com high-risk classification for predicting falls (43.4%) and injurious falls (34.4%), although specificity was high (79.4% and 78.6%, respectively). Despite the FROP-Com’s low predictive accuracy, the high fall rate and high falls risk of the sample suggest that older people who fall, present to ED and are discharged home are at high risk of future falls. In high-falls-risk populations such as in this study, the FROP-Com is not a valid tool for classifying risk of falls or injurious falls. Its potential value may instead be in identifying risk factors for falling to direct tailoring of falls prevention interventions to reduce future falls

Reduction of Belt Restraint Use: Long-Term Effects of the EXBELT Intervention

Objectives To assess the long-term effects of the EXBELT intervention program, which was designed to reduce belt restraint use and was found to be effective immediately after implementation, after 24 months. Design Quasi-experimental longitudinal design. Setting Thirteen nursing homes: seven assigned to control group and six to intervention group. Participants A panel group (n = 225) of residents present at baseline and 24 months after baseline and a survey group (n = 689) of all residents present 24 months after baseline. The survey group included the panel group. Intervention EXBELT included four components: a policy change, an educational program, consultation, and availability of alternative interventions. Measurements The use of belt restraints 24 months after baseline was the primary outcome measure. Secondary outcomes included other types of physical restraints. An independent observer collected data four times during a 24-hour period. Results EXBELT resulted in a 65% decrease in belt use between baseline and 24 months after baseline in the panel group (odds ratio 0.35, 95% confidence interval = 0.130.93; P = .04). In the survey group, the proportion of residents using belts was 13% in the control and 3% in the intervention group (P < .001) 24 months after baseline. The use of the most restrictive types of restraints was significantly lower in the intervention group than the control group in the panel and survey groups. Conclusion The EXBELT intervention was associated with long-term minimization of belt restraint usage in older nursing home residents. A multicomponent intervention including institutional policy change, education, consultation, and the availability of alternative interventions had an enduring effect on successful restraint reduction