Factors associated with reporting of the Prevention of Falls Network Europe (ProFaNE) core outcome set domains in randomized trials on falls in older people: a citation analysis and correlational study.

BACKGROUND: Core outcome sets are advocated as a means to standardize outcome reporting across randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and reduce selective outcome reporting. In 2005, the Prevention of Falls Network Europe (ProFaNE) published a core outcome set identifying five domains that should be measured and reported, at a minimum, in RCTs or meta-analysis on falls in older people. As reporting of all five domains of the ProFaNE core outcome set has been minimal, we set out to investigate factors associated with reporting of the ProFaNE core outcome set domains in a purposeful sample of RCTs on falls in older people. METHODS: We conducted a systematic citation analysis to identify all reports of RCTs focused on falls in older people that cited the ProFaNE core outcome set between October 2005 and July 2021. We abstracted author-level, study-level, and manuscript-level data and whether each domain of the ProFaNE core outcome set was reported. We used penalized LASSO regression to identify factors associated with the mean percentage of ProFaNE core outcome set domains reported. RESULTS: We identified 85 eligible reports of RCTs. Articles were published between 2007 and 2021, described 75 unique RCTs, and were authored by 76 unique corresponding authors. The percentage of ProFaNE core outcome set domains reported ranged from 0 to 100%, with a median of 40% and mean (standard deviation, SD) of 52.2% (25.1). RCTs funded by a non-industry source reported a higher mean percentage of domains than RCTs without a non-industry funding source (estimated mean difference = 17.5%; 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.8-33.2). RCTs examining exercise (15.4%; 95% CI 1.9-28.9) or multi-component/factorial (17.4%; 95% CI 4.7-30.1) interventions each reported a higher mean percentage of domains than RCTs examining other intervention types. CONCLUSIONS: We found that RCTs funded by at least one non-industry source, examining exercise or multi-component/factorial interventions, reported the highest percentages of ProFaNE core outcome set domains. Findings may help inform strategies to increase the impact of the ProFaNE core outcome set. Ultimately, this may lead to enhanced knowledge of the effectiveness and safety of interventions to prevent and/or manage falls in older people.

Exploring the delivery of community rehabilitation services for older people in an urban Canadian setting: Perspectives of service providers, managers and health system administrators.

As the global population of older people increases, policies aimed at improving health care delivery for older people often include supports for ageing in place. Living in the community not only reduces institutionalisation but also improves quality of life and reduces health care costs. For older people, community rehabilitation offers the opportunity to preserve and maximise function while maintaining the ability to live in the community. However, limited research examines the delivery, coordination and integration of community rehabilitation services in health systems. Our case study explored the perspectives of service providers, managers and health system administrators on the strengths, limitations and gaps in community rehabilitation for older people in one Canadian urban health region. Using interpretive description and thematic analysis, we analysed interview data from: 16 service providers, eight managers and five health system administrators. Three themes were identified: (a) Limited Access to Programs and Services; (b) Need to Emphasise Promoting, Maintaining and Restoring Function; and (c) Lack of Flow Across the System. Participants highlighted that restrictive eligibility criteria limited access to services. Services were organised around health conditions that did not address the needs of older people. Long waitlists meant that services were delayed. Transportation costs limited participation of individuals from lower socioeconomic status (SES). Age restrictions did not reflect differences in the ageing process and the health inequities individuals from lower SES groups experienced. There was a lack of emphasis in community rehabilitation programs on maintaining or restoring function in older people, which is the primary focus of rehabilitation. Furthermore, key stakeholders stressed the need for strengthening the integration of service delivery across the continuum of care. The findings underscore the need to develop a conceptual framework for community rehabilitation to promote greater system integration, access and availability of services and to optimise functional outcomes for older people.

Effectiveness of Hip Protectors to Reduce Risk for Hip Fracture from Falls in Long-Term Care.

OBJECTIVE: To generate evidence of the effectiveness of hip protectors to minimize risk of hip fracture at the time of falling among residents of long-term care (LTC) by contrasting rates of hip fractures between falls with and without hip protectors. DESIGN: A 12-month, retrospective cohort study. We retrospectively reviewed fall incident reports recorded during the 12 months prior to baseline in participating homes. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: A population-based sample comprising all residents from 14 LTC homes owned and operated by a single regional health authority, who experienced at least 1 recorded fall during the 12-month study. RESULTS: At baseline, the pooled mean (standard deviation) age of residents in participating homes was 82.7 (11.3) years and 68% were female. Hip protectors were worn in 2108 of 3520 (60%) recorded falls. Propensity to wear hip protectors was associated with male sex, cognitive impairment, wandering behavior, cardiac dysrhythmia, use of a cane or walker, use of anti-anxiety medication, and presence of urinary and bowel incontinence. The incidence of hip fracture was 0.33 per 100 falls in falls with hip protectors compared with 0.92 per 100 falls in falls without hip protectors, representing an unadjusted relative risk (RR) of hip fracture of 0.36 (95% confidence interval 0.14-0.90, P = .029) between protected and unprotected falls. After adjusting for propensity to wear hip protectors, the RR of hip fracture was 0.38 (95% confidence interval 0.14-0.99, P = .048) during protected vs unprotected falls. CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS: Hip protectors were worn in 60% of falls, and the risk of hip fracture was reduced by nearly 3-fold by wearing a hip protector at the time of falling. Given that most clinical trials have failed to attain a similar level of adherence, our findings support the need for future research on the benefits of dissemination and implementation strategies to maximize adherence with hip protectors in LTC.

Hand forces exerted by long-term care staff when pushing wheelchairs on compliant and non-compliant flooring.

Purpose-designed compliant flooring and carpeting have been promoted as a means for reducing fall-related injuries in high-risk environments, such as long-term care. However, it is not known whether these surfaces influence the forces that long-term care staff exert when pushing residents in wheelchairs. We studied 14 direct-care staff who pushed a loaded wheelchair instrumented with a triaxial load cell to test the effects on hand force of flooring overlay (vinyl versus carpet) and flooring subfloor (concrete versus compliant rubber [brand: SmartCells]). During straight-line pushing, carpet overlay increased initial and sustained hand forces compared to vinyl overlay by 22-49% over a concrete subfloor and by 8-20% over a compliant subfloor. Compliant subflooring increased initial and sustained hand forces compared to concrete subflooring by 18-31% when under a vinyl overlay. In contrast, compliant flooring caused no change in initial or sustained hand forces compared to concrete subflooring when under a carpet overlay.

Determinants of staff commitment to hip protectors in long-term care: A cross-sectional survey.

BACKGROUND: If worn, certain models of hip protectors are highly effective at preventing hip fractures from falls in residents of long-term care, but modest acceptance and adherence have limited the effectiveness of hip protectors. Residents of long-term care are more likely to accept the initial offer of hip protectors and to adhere to recommendations concerning the use of hip protectors when staff are committed to supporting the application of hip protectors. Yet, we know very little about the nature of and factors associated with staff commitment to hip protectors in long-term care. OBJECTIVE: To identify factors associated with staff commitment to hip protectors in long-term care. DESIGN: A cross-sectional survey. SETTING: Thirteen long-term care homes (total beds = 1816) from a single regional health district in British Columbia, Canada. PARTICIPANTS: A convenience sample of 535 paid staff who worked most of their time (>50% of work hours) at a participating long-term care home, for at least one month, and for at least 8 h per week. We excluded six (1.1%) respondents who were unaware of hip protectors. Of the remaining 529 respondents, 90% were female and 55% were health care assistants. METHODS: Respondents completed the Commitment to Hip Protectors Index to indicate their commitment to hip protectors. We used Bayesian Model Averaging logistic regression to model staff commitment as a function of personal variables, experiences with hip protectors, intraorganizational communication and influence, and organizational context. RESULTS: Staff commitment was negatively related to organizational tenure >20 years (posterior probability = 97%; logistic regression coefficient = -0.28; 95% confidence interval = -0.48, -0.08), and awareness of a padded hip fracture (100%; -0.57; -0.69, -0.44). Staff commitment was positively related to the existence of a champion of hip protectors within the home (100%; 0.24; 0.17, 0.31), perceived quality of intraorganizational communication (100%; 0.04; 0.02, 0.05), extent of mutual respect between residents and staff and perceived contribution to quality of life of the residents they serve (100%; 0.10; 0.05, 0.15), and frequency of transformational leadership practices by respondents' primary supervisors (100%; 0.01; 0.01, 0.02). CONCLUSIONS: We provide novel insight into the factors governing staff commitment to hip protectors in long-term care. Targeting of these factors could improve acceptance and adherence with hip protectors, thereby contributing to enhanced effectiveness of hip protectors to prevent hip fractures in long-term care.

Validation and psychometric properties of the commitment to hip protectors (C-HiP) index in long-term care providers of British Columbia, Canada: a cross-sectional survey.

BACKGROUND: If worn during a fall, hip protectors substantially reduce risk for hip fracture. However, a major barrier to their clinical efficacy is poor user adherence. In long-term care, adherence likely depends on how committed care providers are to hip protectors, but empirical evidence is lacking due to the absence of a psychometrically valid assessment tool. METHODS: We conducted a cross-sectional survey in a convenience sample of 529 paid care providers. We developed the 15-item C-HiP Index to measure commitment, comprised of three subscales: affective, cognitive and behavioural. Responses were subjected to hierarchical factor analysis and internal consistency testing. Eleven experts rated the relevance and clarity of items on 4-point Likert scales. We performed simple linear regression to determine whether C-HiP Index scores were positively related to the question, "Do you think of yourself as a champion of hip protectors", rated on a 5-point Likert scale. We examined whether the C-HiP Index could differentiate respondents: (i) who were aware of a protected fall causing hip fracture from those who were unaware; (ii) who agreed in the existence of a champion of hip protectors within their home from those who didn't. RESULTS: Hierarchical factor analysis yielded two lower-order factors and a single higher-order factor, representing the overarching concept of commitment to hip protectors. Items from affective and cognitive subscales loaded highest on the first lower-order factor, while items from the behavioural subscale loaded highest on the second. We eliminated one item due to low factor matrix coefficients, and poor expert evaluation. The C-HiP Index had a Cronbach's alpha of 0.96. A one-unit increase in championing was associated with a 5.2-point (p < 0.01) increase in C-HiP Index score. Median C-HiP Index scores were 4.3-points lower (p < 0.01) among respondents aware of a protected fall causing hip fracture, and 7.0-points higher (p < 0.01) among respondents who agreed in the existence of a champion of hip protectors within their home. CONCLUSIONS: We offer evidence of the psychometric properties of the C-HiP Index. The development of a valid and reliable assessment tool is crucial to understanding the factors that govern adherence to hip protectors in long-term care.

External Hand Forces Exerted by Long-Term Care Staff to Push Floor-Based Lifts: Effects of Flooring System and Resident Weight.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to investigate the effects of flooring type and resident weight on external hand forces required to push floor-based lifts in long-term care (LTC). BACKGROUND: Novel compliant flooring is designed to reduce fall-related injuries among LTC residents but may increase forces required for staff to perform pushing tasks. A motorized lift may offset the effect of flooring on push forces. METHOD: Fourteen female LTC staff performed straight-line pushes with two floor-based lifts (conventional, motor driven) loaded with passengers of average and 90th-percentile resident weights over four flooring systems (concrete+vinyl, compliant+vinyl, concrete+carpet, compliant+carpet). Initial and sustained push forces were measured by a handlebar-mounted triaxial load cell and compared to participant-specific tolerance limits. Participants rated pushing difficulty. RESULTS: Novel compliant flooring increased initial and sustained push forces and subjective ratings compared to concrete flooring. Compared to the conventional lift, the motor-driven lift substantially reduced initial and sustained push forces and perceived difficulty of pushing for all four floors and both resident weights. Participants exerted forces above published tolerance limits only when using the conventional lift on the carpet conditions (concrete+carpet, compliant+carpet). With the motor-driven lift only, resident weight did not affect push forces. CONCLUSION: Novel compliant flooring increased linear push forces generated by LTC staff using floor-based lifts, but forces did not exceed tolerance limits when pushing over compliant+vinyl. The motor-driven lift substantially reduced push forces compared to the conventional lift. APPLICATION: Results may help to address risk of work-related musculoskeletal injury, especially in locations with novel compliant flooring.

Facilitators of and barriers to hip protector acceptance and adherence in long-term care facilities: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Hip protectors represent an attractive strategy for reducing hip fractures among high-risk fallers in long-term care facilities. However, clinical studies yield conflicting results regarding their clinical value. This is mainly due to poor acceptance and adherence among users in wearing these devices. As a result, there is an urgent need to identify potential barriers and facilitators to initial acceptance and continued adherence with hip protector use. PURPOSE: The objective of this systematic review is to synthesize available research evidence to identify factors that influence acceptance and adherence among older adults living in long-term care facilities. METHODS: A key word search was conducted for studies published in English between 2000 and 2013 that employed quantitative, qualitative, or mixed-methods research designs. Two independent reviewers evaluated each article for inclusion, with a third reviewer when needed to resolve discrepancies. RESULTS: Twenty-eight articles met our inclusion criteria, and facilitators and barriers were clustered into 4 socio-ecological levels: system (eg, facility commitment, staff shortages), caregiver (eg, belief in the efficacy of protectors, negative perceptions), resident (eg, clinical risk factors for falls and related fractures, acute illness), and product (eg, soft shell, discomfort). DISCUSSION: The outcomes provide decision makers, health professionals, and caregivers with a greater awareness of strategies to improve compliance with the use of hip protectors. Furthermore, researchers can use this information to design clinical trials that yield high acceptance and adherence.