Exercise for falls prevention in community-dwelling older adults: Trial and participant characteristics, interventions and bias in clinical trials from a systematic review

IntroductionThere is strong evidence that exercise prevents falls in community-dwelling older people. This review summarises trial and participant characteristics, intervention contents and study quality of 108 randomised trials evaluating exercise interventions for falls prevention in community-dwelling older adults.MethodsMEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL and three other databases sourced randomised controlled trials of exercise as a single intervention to prevent falls in community-dwelling adults aged 60+ years to May 2018.Results108 trials with 146 intervention arms and 23 407 participants were included. Trials were undertaken in 25 countries, 90% of trials had predominantly female participants and 56% had elevated falls risk as an inclusion criterion. In 72% of trial interventions attendance rates exceeded 50% and/or 75% of participants attended 50% or more sessions. Characteristics of the trials within the three types of intervention programme that reduced falls were: (1) balance and functional training interventions lasting on average 25 weeks (IQR 16–52), 39% group based, 63% individually tailored; (2) Tai Chi interventions lasting on average 20 weeks (IQR 15–43), 71% group based, 7% tailored; (3) programmes with multiple types of exercise lasting on average 26 weeks (IQR 12–52), 54% group based, 75% tailored. Only 35% of trials had low risk of bias for allocation concealment, and 53% for attrition bias.ConclusionsThe characteristics of effective exercise interventions can guide clinicians and programme providers in developing optimal interventions based on current best evidence. Future trials should minimise likely sources of bias and comply with reporting guidelines

Consequences of a Diagnostic Label: A Systematic Scoping Review and Thematic Framework

Objectives: To develop a thematic framework for the range of consequences arising from a diagnostic label from an individual, family/caregiver, healthcare professional, and community perspective. Design: Systematic scoping review of qualitative studies. Search Strategy: We searched PubMed, Embase, PsycINFO, Cochrane, and CINAHL for primary studies and syntheses of primary studies that explore the consequences of labelling non-cancer diagnoses. Reference lists of included studies were screened, and forward citation searches undertaken. Study Selection: We included peer reviewed publications describing the perceived consequences for individuals labelled with a non-cancer diagnostic label from four perspectives: that of the individual, their family/caregiver, healthcare professional and/or community members. We excluded studies using hypothetical scenarios. Data Extraction and Synthesis: Data extraction used a three-staged process: one third was used to develop a preliminary framework, the next third for framework validation, and the final third coded if thematic saturation was not achieved. Author themes and supporting quotes were extracted, and analysed from the perspective of individual, family/caregiver, healthcare professional, or community member. Results: After deduplication, searches identified 7,379 unique articles. Following screening, 146 articles, consisting of 128 primary studies and 18 reviews, were included. The developed framework consisted of five overarching themes relevant to the four perspectives: psychosocial impact (e.g., positive/negative psychological impact, social- and self-identity, stigma), support (e.g., increased, decreased, relationship changes, professional interactions), future planning (e.g., action and uncertainty), behaviour (e.g., beneficial or detrimental modifications), and treatment expectations (e.g., positive/negative experiences). Perspectives of individuals were most frequently reported. Conclusions: This review developed and validated a framework of five domains of consequences following diagnostic labelling. Further research is required to test the external validity and acceptability of the framework for individuals and their family/caregiver, healthcare professionals, and community

Consequences of health condition labelling: protocol for a systematic scoping review

Introduction When health conditions are labelled it is often to classify and communicate a set of symptoms. While diagnostic labelling can provide explanation for an individual's symptoms, it can also impact how individuals and others view those symptoms. Despite existing research regarding the effects of labelling health conditions, a synthesis of these effects has not occurred. We will conduct a systematic scoping review to synthesise the reported consequences and impact of being given a label for a health condition from an individual, societal and health practitioner perspective and explore in what context labelling of health conditions is considered important. Methods and analysis The review will adhere to the Joanna Briggs Methodology for Scoping Reviews. Searches will be conducted in five electronic databases (PubMed, Embase, PsycINFO, Cochrane, CINAHL). Reference lists of included studies will be screened and forward and backward citation searching of included articles will be conducted. We will include reviews and original studies which describe the consequences for individuals labelled with a non-cancer health condition. We will exclude hypothetical research designs and studies focused on the consequences of labelling cancer conditions, intellectual disabilities and/or social attributes. We will conduct thematic analyses for qualitative data and descriptive or meta-analyses for quantitative data where appropriate. Ethics and dissemination Ethical approval is not required for a scoping review. Results will be disseminated via publication in a peer-reviewed journal, conference presentations and lay-person summaries on various online platforms. Findings from this systematic scoping review will identify gaps in current understanding of how, when, why and for whom a diagnostic label is important and inform future research

Quantifying the psychological and behavioural consequences of a diagnostic label for non-cancer conditions: systematic review

Background Screening for asymptomatic health conditions is perceived as mostly beneficial, with possible harms receiving little attention. Aims To quantify proximal and longer-term consequences for individuals receiving a diagnostic label following screening for an asymptomatic, non-cancer health condition. Method Five electronic databases were searched (inception to November 2022) for studies that recruited asymptomatic screened individuals who received or did not receive a diagnostic label. Eligible studies reported psychological, psychosocial and/or behavioural outcomes before and after screening results. Independent reviewers screened titles and abstracts, extracted data from included studies, and assessed risk of bias (Risk of Bias in Non-Randomised Studies of Interventions). Results were meta-analysed or descriptively reported. Results Sixteen studies were included. Twelve studies addressed psychological outcomes, four studies examined behavioural outcomes and none reported psychosocial outcomes. Risk of bias was judged as low (n = 8), moderate (n = 5) or serious (n = 3). Immediately after receiving results, anxiety was significantly higher for individuals receiving versus not receiving a diagnostic label (mean difference -7.28, 95% CI -12.85 to -1.71). On average, anxiety increased from the non-clinical to clinical range, but returned to the non-clinical range in the longer term. No significant immediate or longer-term differences were found for depression or general mental health. Absenteeism did not significantly differ from the year before to the year after screening. Conclusions The impacts of screening asymptomatic, non-cancer health conditions are not universally positive. Limited research exists regarding longer-term impacts. Well-designed, high-quality studies further investigating these impacts are required to assist development of protocols that minimise psychological distress following diagnosis

Consequences of a Diagnostic Label: A Systematic Scoping Review and Thematic Framework

Objectives: To develop a thematic framework for the range of consequences arising from a diagnostic label from an individual, family/caregiver, healthcare professional, and community perspective. Design: Systematic scoping review of qualitative studies. Search Strategy: We searched PubMed, Embase, PsycINFO, Cochrane, and CINAHL for primary studies and syntheses of primary studies that explore the consequences of labelling non-cancer diagnoses. Reference lists of included studies were screened, and forward citation searches undertaken. Study Selection: We included peer reviewed publications describing the perceived consequences for individuals labelled with a non-cancer diagnostic label from four perspectives: that of the individual, their family/caregiver, healthcare professional and/or community members. We excluded studies using hypothetical scenarios. Data Extraction and Synthesis: Data extraction used a three-staged process: one third was used to develop a preliminary framework, the next third for framework validation, and the final third coded if thematic saturation was not achieved. Author themes and supporting quotes were extracted, and analysed from the perspective of individual, family/caregiver, healthcare professional, or community member. Results: After deduplication, searches identified 7,379 unique articles. Following screening, 146 articles, consisting of 128 primary studies and 18 reviews, were included. The developed framework consisted of five overarching themes relevant to the four perspectives: psychosocial impact (e.g., positive/negative psychological impact, social- and self-identity, stigma), support (e.g., increased, decreased, relationship changes, professional interactions), future planning (e.g., action and uncertainty), behaviour (e.g., beneficial or detrimental modifications), and treatment expectations (e.g., positive/negative experiences). Perspectives of individuals were most frequently reported. Conclusions: This review developed and validated a framework of five domains of consequences following diagnostic labelling. Further research is required to test the external validity and acceptability of the framework for individuals and their family/caregiver, healthcare professionals, and community

Evolution of the Thematic Structure and Main Producers of Physical Therapy Interventions Research: A Bibliometric Analysis (1986 to 2017)

Financiado para publicación en acceso aberto: Universidade da Coruña/CISUG[Abstract] Background: Bibliometric studies are used to analyse and map scientific areas, and study the scientific output and impact of institutes and countries. Objectives: Describe the thematic structure and evolution of the field of physical therapy interventions using articles indexed in Physiotherapy Evidence Database (PEDro). Also, identify and compare the main producers (countries, institutions) over time (research output, citation impact). Methods: Eligible articles were those indexed in PEDro (1986-2017) and matched to Web of Science. VOSviewer software, bibliometric text mining, and visualisation techniques were used to evaluate the thematic structure of the included articles. We collected data about authors' country and institutional affiliation, and calculated bibliometric indicators (production, citation impact). Results: A total of 29 090 articles were analysed. Eight topics were identified: "neurological rehabilitation"; "methods"; "exercise for prevention and rehabilitation of lifestyle diseases"; "assessment and treatment of musculoskeletal pain"; "physical activity", "health promotion and behaviour change"; "respiratory physical therapy"; "hospital, primary care and health economics"; "cancer and complementary therapies". The most productive countries were United States, United Kingdom, Australia, and Canada. The most impactful countries were United States, France, Finland, and Canada. The most productive institutions were University of Sydney, VU University of Amsterdam, University of Queensland, and University of Toronto. Conclusions: The thematic structure of physical therapy interventions has evolved over time with "neurological rehabilitation", "methods", "exercise related to lifestyle diseases", and "physical activity" becoming increasingly important. Main producers of this research were traditionally located in North America and Europe but now include countries like China and Brazil.The research stay at the University of Sydney -where this work was designed- was partially funded by the Predoctoral Research Grant 2019 of the Colexio Oficial de Fisioterapeutas de Galicia, Galicia, Spain. Funding for open access charge: Universidade da Coruña/CISU