Course of fear of falling after hip fracture: findings from a 12-month inception cohort.

OBJECTIVES: To examine the course of fear of falling (FoF) up to 1 year after hip fracture, including the effect of prefracture FoF on the course. DESIGN: Observational cohort study with assessment of FoF at 6, 12 and 52 weeks after hip fracture. SETTING: Haaglanden Medical Centre, the Netherlands. PARTICIPANTS: 444 community-dwelling adults aged 70 years and older, admitted to hospital with a hip fracture. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: Short Falls Efficacy Scale International (FES-I), with a cut-off score ≥11 to define elevated FoF levels. RESULTS: Six weeks after hip fracture the study population-based mean FES-I was located around the cut-off value of 11, and levels decreased only marginally over time. One year after fracture almost one-third of the population had FoF (FES-I ≥11). Although the group with prefracture FoF (42.6%) had slightly elevated FES-I levels during the entire follow-up, the effect was not statistically significant. Patients with persistent FoF at 6 and 12 weeks after fracture (26.8%) had the highest FES-I levels, with a mean well above the cut-off value during the entire follow-up. For the majority of patients in this group, FoF is still present 1 year after fracture (84.9%). CONCLUSIONS: In this study population, representing patients in relative good health condition that are able to attend the outpatient follow-up at 6 and 12 weeks, FoF as defined by an FES-I score ≥11 was common within the first year after hip fracture. Patients with persistent FoF at 12 weeks have the highest FES-I levels in the first year after fracture, and for most of these patients the FoF remains. For timely identification of patients who may benefit from intervention, we recommend structural assessment of FoF in the first 12 weeks after fracture.

Partnerships in nursing homes: How do family caregivers of residents with dementia perceive collaboration with staff?

BACKGROUND: Partnerships between family and nursing staff in nursing homes are essential to address residents' needs and wishes. Collaboration is needed to create partnerships; nonetheless, challenges exist. AIM: This study aimed to gain insights into the experiences of families collaborating with staff. METHOD: Semi-structured interviews were held with 30 family caregivers of nursing home residents with dementia. FINDINGS: Data reflected three themes, which shaped collaboration with staff from families' perspective, 'communication', 'trust and dependency' and 'involvement'. DISCUSSION: Good communication appeared to be a requisite condition for having trust in staff and quality of involvement in residents' life. Good communication was described as having informal contact with staff, which enabled family and staff to build a personal connection. Consequently, this seemed to increase trust and satisfaction regarding involvement. CONCLUSION: Findings suggest that increasing informal contact and building a personal connection should be a priority for staff in order to improve collaboration and to create partnerships with families.

Process evaluation of 'Brains Ahead!': an intervention for children and adolescents with mild traumatic brain injury within a randomized controlled trial.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate whether the 'Brains Ahead! Intervention for children and adolescents with mild traumatic brain injury' was implemented as intended. In addition, involvement in and satisfaction with the intervention among patients, caregivers and professionals delivering the intervention were studied. DESIGN: Mixed methods, prospective study. PARTICIPANTS: Children with mild traumatic brain injury and their caregivers, allocated to the intervention group of the randomized controlled trial in the 'Brains Ahead!' study, and the two professionals providing the intervention. INTERVENTION: The intervention consists of a standardized and individualized psychoeducational session with written take-home information, and follow-up telephone call(s). MAIN MEASURES: Registration forms, evaluation questionnaires for patients and caregivers and semi-structured interviews for professionals. DATA ANALYSIS: Qualitative data were categorized based on content. Quantitative data were reported as descriptive statistics. RESULTS: Fifty-five patients and caregivers out of 60 study-participants attended both sessions. All elements of the intervention were delivered to 53 study-participants. Evaluation questionnaires were completed by 21 of the 31 patients aged 12 years and older, and by 41 caregivers. Overall, the sessions were considered useful by 19 patients, 40 caregivers and both professionals. Reassurance, creating a better understanding and recognition of symptoms were rated as important aspects. On a scale from 1 to 10, the intervention was rated by children, caregivers and professionals with 7.6 (SD 1.2), 8.1 (SD .9) and 8.0 (SD .0), respectively. CONCLUSION: The 'Brains Ahead!' intervention was largely implemented as intended and the process evaluation revealed that it is considered feasible according to patients, caregivers and professionals.

Process evaluation of the Restore4stroke Self-Management intervention 'Plan Ahead!': a stroke-specific self-management intervention.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate whether the self-management intervention was implemented as intended. Additionally, we studied involvement in and satisfaction with the intervention among patients, their partners and therapists. DESIGN: Mixed method, prospective study. SETTING: Outpatient facilities of hospitals/rehabilitation centres. PARTICIPANTS: Stroke patients, their partners and therapists from the experimental arm of the Restore4Stroke Self-Management study. INTERVENTION: 'Plan Ahead!' is a 10-week self-management intervention for stroke patients and partners, consisting of seven two-hour group sessions. Proactive action planning, education and peer support are main elements of this intervention. MAIN MEASURES: Session logs, questionnaires for therapists, patients and their partners, and focus groups. DATA ANALYSIS: Qualitative data were analysed with thematic analysis supplemented by quasi-statistics. Quantitative data were reported as descriptive statistics. RESULTS: The study sample consisted of 53 patients and 26 partners taking part in the intervention, and all therapists delivering the intervention (N = 19). At least three-quarters of the intervention sessions were attended by 33 patients and 24 partners. On a scale from 1 to 10, patients, partners and therapists rated the intervention with mean scores of 7.5 (SD1.6), 7.8 (SD.7) and 7.4 (SD.7), respectively. Peer support was the most frequently appreciated element for participants and therapists. The proactive action planning tool was adequately applied in 76 of the 96 sessions. CONCLUSION: Although the target audience was reached and both participants and therapists were satisfied with the intervention, the proactive action planning tool that distinguishes the current intervention from existing stroke-specific self-management interventions was only partly implemented according to protocol.