Improving mobility and participation of older people with vertigo, dizziness and balance disorders in primary care using a care pathway: feasibility study and process evaluation.

BACKGROUND: Community-dwelling older people are frequently affected by vertigo, dizziness and balance disorders (VDB). We previously developed a care pathway (CPW) to improve their mobility and participation by offering standardized approaches for general practitioners (GPs) and physical therapists (PTs). We aimed to assess the feasibility of the intervention, its implementation strategy and the study procedures in preparation for the subsequent main trial. METHODS: This 12-week prospective cohort feasibility study was accompanied by a process evaluation designed according to the UK Medical Research Council's Guidance for developing and evaluating complex interventions. Patients with VDB (≥65 years), GPs and PTs in primary care were included. The intervention consisted of a diagnostic screening checklist for GPs and a guide for PTs. The implementation strategy included specific educational trainings and a telephone helpline. Data for mixed-method process evaluation were collected via standardized questionnaires, field notes and qualitative interviews. Quantitative data were analysed using descriptive statistics, qualitative data using content analysis. RESULTS: A total of five GP practices (seven single GPs), 10 PT practices and 22 patients were included in the study. The recruitment of GPs and patients was challenging (response rates: GP practices: 28%, PT practices: 39%). Ninety-one percent of the patients and all health professionals completed the study. The health professionals responded well to the educational trainings; the utilization of the telephone helpline was low (one call each from GPs and PTs). Familiarisation with the routine of application of the intervention and positive attitudes were emphasized as facilitators of the implementation of the intervention, whereas a lack of time was mentioned as a barrier. Despite difficulties in the GPs' adherence to the intervention protocol, the GPs, PTs and patients saw benefit in the intervention. The patients' treatment adherence to physical therapy was good. There were minor issues in data collection, but no unintended consequences. CONCLUSION: Although the process evaluation provided good support for the feasibility of study procedures, the intervention and its implementation strategy, we identified a need for improvement in recruitment of participants, the GP intervention part and the data collection procedures. The findings will inform the main trial to test the interventions effectiveness in a cluster RCT. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Projektdatenbank Versorgungsforschung Deutschland (German registry Health Services Research) VfD_MobilE-PHY_17_003910, date of registration: 30.11.2017; Deutsches Register Klinischer Studien (German Clinical Trials Register) DRKS00022918, date of registration: 03.09.2020 (retrospectively registered).

Development of a complex intervention to improve mobility and participation of older people with vertigo, dizziness and balance disorders in primary care: a mixed methods study.

BACKGROUND: Vertigo, dizziness and balance disorders (VDB) are common in older people and cause restrictions in mobility and social participation. Due to a multifactorial aetiology, health care is often overutilised, but many patients are also treated insufficiently in primary care. The purpose of this study was to develop a care pathway as a complex intervention to improve mobility and participation in older people with VDB in primary care. METHODS: The development process followed the UK Medical Research Council guidance using a mixed-methods design with individual and group interviews carried out with patients, physical therapists (PTs), general practitioners (GPs), nurses working in community care and a multi-professional expert panel to create a first draft of a care pathway (CPW) and implementation strategy using the Consolidated Framework of Implementation Research and the Expert recommendations for Implementing Change. Subsequently, small expert group modelling of specific components of the CPW was carried out, with GPs, medical specialists and PTs. The Behaviour Change Wheel was applied to design the intervention´s approach to behaviour change. To derive theoretical assumptions, we adopted Kellogg´s Logic Model to consolidate the hypothesized chain of causes leading to patient-relevant outcomes. RESULTS: Individual interviews with patients showed that VDB symptoms need to be taken more seriously by GPs. Patients demanded age-specific treatment offers, group sessions or a continuous mentoring by a PT. GPs required a specific guideline for diagnostics and treatment options including psychosocial interventions. Specific assignment to and a standardized approach during physical therapy were desired by PTs. Nurses favoured a multi-professional documentation system. The structured three-day expert workshop resulted in a first draft of CPW and potential implementation strategies. Subsequent modelling resulted in a CPW with components and appropriate training materials for involved health professionals. A specific implementation strategy is now available. CONCLUSION: A mixed-methods design was suggested to be a suitable approach to develop a complex intervention and its implementation strategy. We will subsequently test the intervention for its acceptability and feasibility in a feasibility study accompanied by a comprehensive process evaluation to inform a subsequent effectiveness trial. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The research project is registered in "Projektdatenbank Versorgungsforschung Deutschland" (Project-ID: VfD_MobilE-PHY_17_003910; date of registration: 30.11.2017).

Physical therapy interventions for older people with vertigo, dizziness and balance disorders addressing mobility and participation: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Vertigo, dizziness and balance disorders (VDB) are among the most relevant contributors to the burden of disability among older adults living in the community and associated with immobility, limitations of activities of daily living and decreased participation. The aim of this study was to identify the quality of evidence of physical therapy interventions that address mobility and participation in older patients with VDB and to characterize the used primary and secondary outcomes. METHODS: A systematic search via MEDLINE (PubMed), Cochrane Library, CINAHL, PEDro, forward citation tracing and hand search was conducted initially in 11/2017 and updated in 7/2019. We included individual and cluster-randomized controlled trials and trials with quasi-experimental design, published between 2007 and 2017/2019 and including individuals ≥65 years with VDB. Physical therapy and related interventions were reviewed with no restrictions to outcome measurement. Screening of titles, abstracts and full texts, data extraction and critical appraisal was conducted by two independent researchers. The included studies were heterogeneous in terms of interventions and outcome measures. Therefore, a narrative synthesis was conducted. RESULTS: A total of 20 randomized and 2 non-randomized controlled trials with 1876 patients met the inclusion criteria. The included studies were heterogeneous in terms of complexity of interventions, outcome measures and methodological quality. Vestibular rehabilitation (VR) was examined in twelve studies, computer-assisted VR (CAVR) in five, Tai Chi as VR (TCVR) in three, canal repositioning manoeuvres (CRM) in one and manual therapy (MT) in one study. Mixed effects were found regarding body structure/function and activities/participation. Quality of life and/or falls were assessed, with no differences between groups. VR is with moderate quality of evidence superior to usual care to improve balance, mobility and symptoms. CONCLUSION: To treat older individuals with VDB, VR in any variation and in addition to CRMs seems to be effective. High-quality randomized trials need to be conducted to inform clinical decision making. TRIAL REGISTRATION: PROSPERO 2017 CRD42017080291 .

Barriers to and facilitators of the implementation of multi-disciplinary care pathways in primary care: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Care pathways (CPWs) are complex interventions that have the potential to reduce treatment errors and optimize patient outcomes by translating evidence into local practice. To design an optimal implementation strategy, potential barriers to and facilitators of implementation must be considered. The objective of this systematic review is to identify barriers to and facilitators of the implementation of CPWs in primary care (PC). METHODS: A systematic search via Cochrane Library, CINAHL, and MEDLINE via PubMed supplemented by hand searches and citation tracing was carried out. We considered articles reporting on CPWs targeting patients at least 65 years of age in outpatient settings that were written in the English or German language and were published between 2007 and 2019. We considered (non-)randomized controlled trials, controlled before-after studies, interrupted time series studies (main project reports) as well as associated process evaluation reports of either methodology. Two independent researchers performed the study selection; the data extraction and critical appraisal were duplicated until the point of perfect agreement between the two reviewers. Due to the heterogeneity of the included studies, a narrative synthesis was performed. RESULTS: Fourteen studies (seven main project reports and seven process evaluation reports) of the identified 8154 records in the search update were included in the synthesis. The structure and content of the interventions as well as the quality of evidence of the studies varied. The identified barriers and facilitators were classified using the Context and Implementation of Complex Interventions framework. The identified barriers were inadequate staffing, insufficient education, lack of financial compensation, low motivation and lack of time. Adequate skills and knowledge through training activities for health professionals, good multi-disciplinary communication and individual tailored interventions were identified as facilitators. CONCLUSIONS: In the implementation of CPWs in PC, a multitude of barriers and facilitators must be considered, and most of them can be modified through the careful design of intervention and implementation strategies. Furthermore, process evaluations must become a standard component of implementing CPWs to enable other projects to build upon previous experience. TRIAL REGISTRATION: PROSPERO 2018 CRD42018087689.

German translation and pre-testing of Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) and Expert Recommendations for Implementing Change (ERIC).

BACKGROUND: Implementation frameworks may support local implementation strategies with a sound theoretical foundation. The Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) facilitates identification of contextual barriers and facilitators, and the Expert Recommendations for Implementing Change (ERIC) allows identifying adequate implementation strategies. Both instruments are already used in German-speaking countries; however, no standardised and validated translation is available thus far. The aim of this study was to translate the CFIR and ERIC framework into German, in order to increase the use of these frameworks and the adherence to evidence-based implementation efforts in German-speaking countries. METHODS: The translation of the original versions of the CFIR and ERIC framework was guided by the World Health Organisation's recommendations for the process of translating and adapting both conceptual frameworks. Accordingly, a four-step process was employed: first, forward translation from English into German was conducted by a research team of German native speakers with fluent knowledge of the English language. Second, a bilingual expert panel comprising one researcher with German as his mother tongue and expert command of the English language and one English language expert and university teacher reviewed the translation and discussed inconsistencies with the initial translators. Third, back-translation into English was conducted by an English native speaking researcher. The final version was pre-tested with 12 German researchers and clinicians who were involved in implementation projects using cognitive interviews. RESULTS: The translation and review process revealed some inconsistencies between the original version and the German translations. All issues could be solved by discussion. Central aspects of the items were confirmed in 60 to 70% of the items, and modifications were proposed in 30% of the items. Finally, we revised one CFIR-item heading after pre-testing. The final version was given consent by all involved parties. CONCLUSIONS: Now, two validated and tested implementation frameworks to guide implementation efforts are available in the German language and can be used to increase the application of agreed-on implementation strategies into practice.