Acceptance and compliance with external hip protectors: A systematic review of the literature

Hip fractures may be prevented by the use of external hip protectors, but compliance is often poor. Therefore, the objective of this study was to assess the determinants of compliance with hip protectors by systematically reviewing the literature. A literature search was performed in PubMed, Embase and the Cochrane Library. Primary acceptance with hip protectors ranged from 37% to 72% (median 68%); compliance varied between 20% and 92% (median 56%). However, in most studies it was not very clear how compliance was defined (e.g., average wearing time on active days and during waking hours, number of user-days per all available follow-up days, percentage falls with hip protector) and how it was measured. To provide more insight in the compliance percentages, the different methods of defining and measuring compliance were presented for the selected studies, when provided. Because of the heterogeneity in study design of the selected studies and the lack of quantitative data in most studies, results regarding the determinants of compliance could not be statistically pooled. Instead a qualitative summary of the determinants of compliance was given. The reasons most frequently mentioned for not wearing hip protectors, were: not being comfortable (too tight/poor fit); the extra effort (and time) needed to wear the device; urinary incontinence; and physical difficulties/illnesses. In conclusion, compliance is a very complex, but important issue in hip protector research and implementation. Based on the experiences of elderly people who wear the hip protectors, adjustments should be made to the protector and the underwear, while maintaining the force attenuation capacity. Furthermore, methods to improve the compliance should be developed, and their effectiveness tested. (aut.ref.

Multifactorial evaluation and treatment of persons with a high risk of recurrent falling was not cost-effective

This study evaluated the cost-effectiveness of multifactorial evaluation and treatment of fall risk factors in community-dwelling older persons at high risk of falling. The intervention and usual care groups did not differ in fall risk or costs. The multifactorial approach was not cost-effective compared to usual care in this group. Introduction: International guidelines recommend multifactorial evaluation and tailored treatment of risk factors to reduce falling in older persons. The cost-effectiveness may be enhanced in high-risk persons. Our study evaluates the cost-effectiveness of multifactorial evaluation and treatment of fall risk factors in community-dwelling older persons at high risk of recurrent falling. Methods: An economic evaluation was conducted alongside a randomised controlled trial. Participants (≥65 years) with a high risk of recurrent falling were randomised into an intervention (n=106) and usual care group (n=111). The intervention consisted of multifactorial assessment and treatment of fall risk factors. Clinical outcomes were proportions of fallers and utility during 1 year. Costs were measured using questionnaires at 3, 6 and 12 months after baseline and valued using cost prices, if available, and guideline prices. Differences in costs and cost-effectiveness were analysed using bootstrapping. Cost-effectiveness planes and acceptability curves were presented. Results: During 1 year, 52% and 56% of intervention and usual care participants reported at least one fall, respectively. The clinical outcome measures did not differ between the two groups. The mean costs were Euro 7,740 (SD 9,129) in the intervention group and Euro 6,838 (SD 8,623) in the usual care group (mean difference Euro 902, bootstrapped 95% CI: -1,534 to 3,357). Cost-effectiveness planes and acceptability curves indicated that multifactorial evaluation and treatment of fall risk factors was not cost-effective compared with usual care. Conclusions: Multifactorial evaluation and treatment of persons with a high risk of recurrent falling was not cost-effective compared to usual care

Multifactorial intervention to reduce falls in older people at high risk of recurrent falls a randomized controlled trial

Background: Falls occur frequently in older people and strongly affect quality of life. Guidelines recommend multifactorial, targeted fall prevention. We evaluated the effectiveness of a multifactorial intervention in older persons with a high risk of recurrent falls. Methods: A randomized controlled trial was conducted from April 3, 2005, to July 21, 2008, at the geriatric outpatient clinic of a university hospital and regional general practices in the Netherlands. Of 2015 persons identified, 217 persons aged 65 years or older were selected to participate. They had a high risk of recurrent falls and no cognitive impairment and had visited the emergency department or their family physician after a fall. The geriatric assessment and intervention were aimed at reduction of fall risk factors. Primary outcome measures were time to first and second falls after randomization. Secondary outcome measures were fractures, activities of daily living, quality of life, and physical performance. Results: Within 1 year, 55 (51.9%) of the 106 intervention participants and 62 (55.9%) of the 111 usual care (control) participants fell at least once. No significant treatment effect was demonstrated for the time to first fall (hazard ratio, 0.96; 95% confidence interval, 0.67-1.37) or the time to second fall (1.13; 0.71-1.80). Similar results were obtained for secondary outcome measures and for perprotocol analysis. One intervention participant died vs 7 in the control group (hazard ratio, 0.15; 95% confidence interval, 0.02-1.21). Conclusion: This multifactorial fall-prevention program does not reduce falls in high-risk, cognitively intact older persons. Trial Registration: isrctn.org Identifier: ISRCTN11546541

Five-year follow-up of the iBerry Study:screening in early adolescence to identify those at risk of psychopathology in emerging adulthood

The iBerry Study, a Dutch population-based high-risk cohort (n = 1022) examines the transition from subclinical symptoms to psychiatric disorders in adolescents. Here, we present the first follow-up measurement, approximately 3 years after baseline assessment and 5 years after the screening based on self-reported emotional and behavioral problems (SDQ-Y). We give an update on the data collection, details on the (non)response, and the results on psychopathology outcomes. The first follow-up (2019–2022) had a response rate of 79% (n = 807). Our results at baseline (mean age 15.0 years) have shown the effectiveness of using the SDQ-Y to select a cohort oversampled for the risk of psychopathology. At first follow-up (mean age 18.1 years), the previously administered SDQ-Y remains predictive for selecting adolescents at risk. At follow-up, 47% of the high-risk adolescents showed significant mental health problems based on self- and parent reports and 46% of the high-risk adolescents met the criteria for multiple DSM-5 diagnoses. Compared to low-risk adolescents, high-risk adolescents had a sevenfold higher odds of significant emotional and behavioral problems at follow-up. Comprehensive assessment on psychopathology, substance abuse, psychotic symptoms, suicidality, nonsuicidal self-injury, addiction to social media and/or video gaming, and delinquency, as well as social development, and the utilization of healthcare and social services were conducted. This wave, as well as the ones to follow, track these adolescents into their young adulthood to identify risk factors, elucidate causal mechanisms, and discern pathways leading to both common and severe mental disorders. Results from the iBerry Study will provide leads for preventive interventions.</p

Minimally important change determined by a visual method integrating an anchor-based and a distribution-based approach

Background: Minimally important changes (MIC) in scores help interpret results from health status instruments. Various distribution-based and anchor-based approaches have been proposed to assess MIC. Objectives: To describe and apply a visual method, called the anchor-based MIC distribution method, which integrates both approaches. Method: Using an anchor, patients are categorized as persons with an important improvement, an important deterioration, or without important change. For these three groups the distribution of the change scores on the health status instrument are depicted in a graph. We present two cut-off points for an MIC: the ROC cut-off point and the 95% limit cut-off point. Results: We illustrate our anchor-based MIC distribution method determining the MIC for the Pain Intensity Numerical Rating Scale in patients with low back pain, using two conceivable definitions of minimal important change on the anchor. The graph shows the distribution of the scores of the health status instrument for the relevant categories on the anchor, and also the consequences of choosing the ROC cut-off point or the 95% limit cut-off point. Discussion: The anchor-based MIC distribution method provides a general framework, applicable to all kind of anchors. This method forces researchers to choose and justify their choice of an appropriate anchor and to define minimal importance on that anchor. The MIC is not an invariable characteristic of a measurement instrument, but may depend, among other things, on the perspective from which minimal importance is considered and the baseline values on the measurement instrument under study. A balance needs to be struck between the practicality of a single MIC value and the validity of a range of MIC values. © 2006 Springer Science+Business Media B.V