The falls efficacy scale international (FES-I): a comprehensive longitudinal validation study

Method: five hundred community-dwelling older people (70-90 years) were assessed on the FES-I in conjunction with demographic, physiological and neuropsychological measures at baseline and at 12 months. Falls were monitored monthly and fear of falling every 3 months. Results: the overall structure and measurement properties of both FES-I scales, as evaluated with item response theory, were good. Discriminative ability on physiological and neuropsychological measures indicated excellent validity, both at baseline (n = 500, convergent validity) and at 1-year follow-up (n = 463, predictive validity). The longitudinal follow-up suggested that FES-I scores increased over time regardless of any fall event, with a trend for a stronger increase in FES-I scores when a person suffered multiple falls in a 3-month period. Additionally, using receiver-operating characteristic (ROC) curves, cut-points were defined to differentiate between lower and higher levels of concern. Conclusions: the current study builds on the previously established psychometric properties of the FES-I. Both scales have acceptable structures, good validity and reliability and can be recommended for research and clinical purposes. Future studies should explore the FES-I's responsiveness to change during intervention studies and confirm suggested cut-points in other settings, larger samples and across different cultures

Can smartphone technology be used to support an effective home exercise intervention to prevent falls amongst community dwelling older adults?: The TOGETHER feasibility RCT study protocol

INTRODUCTION: Falls have major implications for quality of life, independence and cost to the health service. Strength and balance training has been found to be effective in reducing the rate/risk of falls, as long as there is adequate fidelity to the evidence-based programme. Health services are often unable to deliver the evidence-based dose of exercise and older adults do not always sufficiently adhere to their programme to gain full outcomes. Smartphone technology based on behaviour-change theory has been used to support healthy lifestyles, but not falls prevention exercise. This feasibility trial will explore whether smartphone technology can support patients to better adhere to an evidence-based rehabilitation programme and test study procedures/outcome measures. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: A two-arm, pragmatic feasibility randomised controlled trial will be conducted with health services in Manchester, UK. Seventy-two patients aged 50+years eligible for a falls rehabilitation exercise programme from two community services will receive: (1) standard service with a smartphone for outcome measurement only or (2) standard service plus a smartphone including the motivational smartphone app. The primary outcome is feasibility of the intervention, study design and procedures. The secondary outcome is to compare standard outcome measures for falls, function and adherence to instrumented versions collected using smartphone. Outcome measures collected include balance, function, falls, strength, fear of falling, health-related quality of life, resource use and adherence. Outcomes are measured at baseline, 3 and 6-month post-randomisation. Interviews/focus groups with health professionals and participants further explore feasibility of the technology and trial procedures. Primarily analyses will be descriptive. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The study protocol is approved by North West Greater Manchester East Research Ethics Committee (Rec ref:18/NW/0457, 9/07/2018). User groups and patient representatives were consulted to inform trial design, and are involved in study recruitment. Results will be reported at conferences and in peer-reviewed publications. A dissemination event will be held in Manchester to present the results of the trial. The protocol adheres to the recommended Standard Protocol Items: Recommendations for Interventional Trials (SPIRIT) checklist

Robustness of In-Laboratory and Daily-Life Gait Speed Measures over One Year in High Functioning 61- To 70-Year-Old Adults

Introduction: Gait speed is a simple and safe measure with strong predictive value for negative health outcomes in clinical practice, yet in-laboratory gait speed seems not representative for daily-life gait speed. This study aimed to investigate the interrelation between and robustness of in-laboratory and daily-life gait speed measures over 12 months in 61- to 70-year-old adults. Methods: Gait speed was assessed in laboratory through standardized stopwatch tests and in daily life by 7 days of trunk accelerometry in the PreventIT cohort, at baseline, and after 6 and 12 months. The interrelation was investigated using Pearson's correlations between gait speed measures at each time point. For robustness, changes over time and variance components were assessed by ANOVA and measurement agreement over time by Bland-Altman analyses. Results: Included were 189 participants (median age 67 years [interquartile range: 64-68], 52.2% females). In-laboratory and daily-life gait speed measures showed low correlations (Pearson's r = 0.045-0.455) at each time point. Moreover, both in-laboratory and daily-life gait speed measures appeared robust over time, with comparable and smaller within-subject than between-subject variance (range 0.001-0.095 m/s and 0.032-0.397 m/s, respectively) and minimal differences between measurements over time (Bland-Altman) with wide limits of agreement (standard deviation of mean difference range: 0.12-0.34 m/s). Discussion/Conclusion: In-laboratory and daily-life gait speed measures show robust assessments of gait speed over 12 months and are distinct constructs in this population of high-functioning adults. This suggests that (a combination of) both measures may have added value in predicting health outcomes

Walking on common ground: a cross-disciplinary scoping review on the clinical utility of digital mobility outcomes

Physical mobility is essential to health, and patients often rate it as a high-priority clinical outcome. Digital mobility outcomes (DMOs), such as real-world gait speed or step count, show promise as clinical measures in many medical conditions. However, current research is nascent and fragmented by discipline. This scoping review maps existing evidence on the clinical utility of DMOs, identifying commonalities across traditional disciplinary divides. In November 2019, 11 databases were searched for records investigating the validity and responsiveness of 34 DMOs in four diverse medical conditions (Parkinson’s disease, multiple sclerosis, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, hip fracture). Searches yielded 19,672 unique records. After screening, 855 records representing 775 studies were included and charted in systematic maps. Studies frequently investigated gait speed (70.4% of studies), step length (30.7%), cadence (21.4%), and daily step count (20.7%). They studied differences between healthy and pathological gait (36.4%), associations between DMOs and clinical measures (48.8%) or outcomes (4.3%), and responsiveness to interventions (26.8%). Gait speed, step length, cadence, step time and step count exhibited consistent evidence of validity and responsiveness in multiple conditions, although the evidence was inconsistent or lacking for other DMOs. If DMOs are to be adopted as mainstream tools, further work is needed to establish their predictive validity, responsiveness, and ecological validity. Cross-disciplinary efforts to align methodology and validate DMOs may facilitate their adoption into clinical practice

Walking on common ground: a cross-disciplinary scoping review on the clinical utility of digital mobility outcomes

Physical mobility is essential to health, and patients often rate it as a high-priority clinical outcome. Digital mobility outcomes (DMOs), such as real-world gait speed or step count, show promise as clinical measures in many medical conditions. However, current research is nascent and fragmented by discipline. This scoping review maps existing evidence on the clinical utility of DMOs, identifying commonalities across traditional disciplinary divides. In November 2019, 11 databases were searched for records investigating the validity and responsiveness of 34 DMOs in four diverse medical conditions (Parkinson’s disease, multiple sclerosis, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, hip fracture). Searches yielded 19,672 unique records. After screening, 855 records representing 775 studies were included and charted in systematic maps. Studies frequently investigated gait speed (70.4% of studies), step length (30.7%), cadence (21.4%), and daily step count (20.7%). They studied differences between healthy and pathological gait (36.4%), associations between DMOs and clinical measures (48.8%) or outcomes (4.3%), and responsiveness to interventions (26.8%). Gait speed, step length, cadence, step time and step count exhibited consistent evidence of validity and responsiveness in multiple conditions, although the evidence was inconsistent or lacking for other DMOs. If DMOs are to be adopted as mainstream tools, further work is needed to establish their predictive validity, responsiveness, and ecological validity. Cross-disciplinary efforts to align methodology and validate DMOs may facilitate their adoption into clinical practice

Support and Assessment for Fall Emergency Referrals (SAFER 1): Cluster Randomised Trial of Computerised Clinical Decision Support for Paramedics

Objective: To evaluate effectiveness, safety and cost-effectiveness of Computerised Clinical Decision Support (CCDS) for paramedics attending older people who fall. Design: Cluster trial randomised by paramedic; modelling. Setting: 13 ambulance stations in two UK emergency ambulance services. Participants: 42 of 409 eligible paramedics, who attended 779 older patients for a reported fall. Interventions: Intervention paramedics received CCDS on Tablet computers to guide patient care. Control paramedics provided care as usual. One service had already installed electronic data capture. Main Outcome Measures: Effectiveness: patients referred to falls service, patient reported quality of life and satisfaction, processes of care. Safety: Further emergency contacts or death within one month. Cost-Effectiveness Costs and quality of life. We used findings from published Community Falls Prevention Trial to model cost-effectiveness. Results: 17 intervention paramedics used CCDS for 54 (12.4%) of 436 participants. They referred 42 (9.6%) to falls services, compared with 17 (5.0%) of 343 participants seen by 19 control paramedics [Odds ratio (OR) 2.04, 95% CI 1.12 to 3.72]. No adverse events were related to the intervention. Non-significant differences between groups included: subsequent emergency contacts (34.6% versus 29.1%; OR 1.27, 95% CI 0.93 to 1.72); quality of life (mean SF12 differences: MCS −0.74, 95% CI −2.83 to +1.28; PCS −0.13, 95% CI −1.65 to +1.39) and non-conveyance (42.0% versus 36.7%; OR 1.13, 95% CI 0.84 to 1.52). However ambulance job cycle time was 8.9 minutes longer for intervention patients (95% CI 2.3 to 15.3). Average net cost of implementing CCDS was £208 per patient with existing electronic data capture, and £308 without. Modelling estimated cost per quality-adjusted life-year at £15,000 with existing electronic data capture; and £22,200 without. Conclusions: Intervention paramedics referred twice as many participants to falls services with no difference in safety. CCDS is potentially cost-effective, especially with existing electronic data capture

Connecting real-world digital mobility assessment to clinical outcomes for regulatory and clinical endorsement–the Mobilise-D study protocol

Background: The development of optimal strategies to treat impaired mobility related to ageing and chronic disease requires better ways to detect and measure it. Digital health technology, including body worn sensors, has the potential to directly and accurately capture real-world mobility. Mobilise-D consists of 34 partners from 13 countries who are working together to jointly develop and implement a digital mobility assessment solution to demonstrate that real-world digital mobility outcomes have the potential to provide a better, safer, and quicker way to assess, monitor, and predict the efficacy of new interventions on impaired mobility. The overarching objective of the study is to establish the clinical validity of digital outcomes in patient populations impacted by mobility challenges, and to support engagement with regulatory and health technology agencies towards acceptance of digital mobility assessment in regulatory and health technology assessment decisions. Methods/design: The Mobilise-D clinical validation study is a longitudinal observational cohort study that will recruit 2400 participants from four clinical cohorts. The populations of the Innovative Medicine Initiative-Joint Undertaking represent neurodegenerative conditions (Parkinson’s Disease), respiratory disease (Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease), neuro-inflammatory disorder (Multiple Sclerosis), fall-related injuries, osteoporosis, sarcopenia, and frailty (Proximal Femoral Fracture). In total, 17 clinical sites in ten countries will recruit participants who will be evaluated every six months over a period of two years. A wide range of core and cohort specific outcome measures will be collected, spanning patient-reported, observer-reported, and clinician-reported outcomes as well as performance-based outcomes (physical measures and cognitive/mental measures). Daily-living mobility and physical capacity will be assessed directly using a wearable device. These four clinical cohorts were chosen to obtain generalizable clinical findings, including diverse clinical, cultural, geographical, and age representation. The disease cohorts include a broad and heterogeneous range of subject characteristics with varying chronic care needs, and represent different trajectories of mobility disability. Discussion: The results of Mobilise-D will provide longitudinal data on the use of digital mobility outcomes to identify, stratify, and monitor disability. This will support the development of widespread, cost-effective access to optimal clinical mobility management through personalised healthcare. Further, Mobilise-D will provide evidence-based, direct measures which can be endorsed by regulatory agencies and health technology assessment bodies to quantify the impact of disease-modifying interventions on mobility. Trial registration: ISRCTN12051706

Mobilise-D insights to estimate real-world walking speed in multiple conditions with a wearable device

This study aimed to validate a wearable device’s walking speed estimation pipeline, considering complexity, speed, and walking bout duration. The goal was to provide recommendations on the use of wearable devices for real-world mobility analysis. Participants with Parkinson’s Disease, Multiple Sclerosis, Proximal Femoral Fracture, Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease, Congestive Heart Failure, and healthy older adults (n = 97) were monitored in the laboratory and the real-world (2.5 h), using a lower back wearable device. Two walking speed estimation pipelines were validated across 4408/1298 (2.5 h/laboratory) detected walking bouts, compared to 4620/1365 bouts detected by a multi-sensor reference system. In the laboratory, the mean absolute error (MAE) and mean relative error (MRE) for walking speed estimation ranged from 0.06 to 0.12 m/s and − 2.1 to 14.4%, with ICCs (Intraclass correlation coefficients) between good (0.79) and excellent (0.91). Real-world MAE ranged from 0.09 to 0.13, MARE from 1.3 to 22.7%, with ICCs indicating moderate (0.57) to good (0.88) agreement. Lower errors were observed for cohorts without major gait impairments, less complex tasks, and longer walking bouts. The analytical pipelines demonstrated moderate to good accuracy in estimating walking speed. Accuracy depended on confounding factors, emphasizing the need for robust technical validation before clinical application. Trial registration: ISRCTN – 12246987

Predicting advanced balance ability and mobility with an instrumented timed up and go test

Extensive test batteries are often needed to obtain a comprehensive picture of a person\u2019s functional status. Many test batteries are not suitable for active and healthy adults due to ceiling effects, or require a lot of space, time, and training. The Community Balance and Mobility Scale (CBMS) is considered a gold standard for this population, but the test is complex, as well as time-and resource intensive. There is a strong need for a faster, yet sensitive and robust test of physical function in seniors. We sought to investigate whether an instrumented Timed Up and Go (iTUG) could predict the CBMS score in 60 outpatients and healthy community-dwelling seniors, where features of the iTUG were predictive, and how the prediction of CBMS with the iTUG compared to standard clinical tests. A partial least squares regression analysis was used to identify latent components explaining variation in CBMS total score. The model with iTUG features was able to predict the CBMS total score with an accuracy of 85.2% (84.9\u201385.5%), while standard clinical tests predicted 82.5% (82.2\u201382.8%) of the score. These findings suggest that a fast and easily administered iTUG could be used to predict CBMS score, providing a valuable tool for research and clinical care