How can we improve Comprehensive Geriatric Assessment for older people living with frailty in primary care and community settings? A qualitative study.

OBJECTIVE: With advancing age comes the increasing prevalence of frailty and increased risk of adverse outcomes (eg, hospitalisation). Evidence for comprehensive geriatric assessment (CGA), a multidimensional holistic model of care, is mixed in community settings. Uncertainties remain, such as the key components of CGA, who delivers it, and the use of technology. This study aimed to understand the perspectives, beliefs and experiences, of both older people and health professionals, to improve the current CGA and explore factors that may impact on CGA delivery in community settings. DESIGN: A qualitative interview study was conducted with older people and healthcare professionals (HCPs) identified using a maximum variation strategy. Data were analysed using an abductive analysis approach. The non-adoption, abandonment, scale-up, spread and sustainability framework and the theoretical framework of acceptability guided the categorisation of the codes and identified categories were mapped to the two frameworks. SETTING: England, UK. RESULTS: 27 people were interviewed, constituting 14 older people and 13 HCPs. We identified limitations in the current CGA: a lack of information sharing between different HCPs who deliver CGA; poor communication between older people and their HCPs and a lack of follow-up as part of CGA. When we discussed the potential for CGA to use technology, HCPs and older people varied in their readiness to engage with it. CONCLUSIONS: Viable solutions to address gaps in the current delivery of CGA include the provision of training and support to use digital technology and a designated comprehensive care coordinator. The next stage of this research will use these findings, existing evidence and stakeholder engagement, to develop and refine a model of community-based CGA that can be assessed for feasibility and acceptability.

A rehabilitation intervention to improve recovery after an episode of delirium in adults over 65 years (RecoverED): study protocol for a multi-centre, single-arm feasibility study.

BACKGROUND: Delirium affects over 20% of all hospitalised older adults. Delirium is associated with a number of adverse outcomes following hospital admission including cognitive decline, anxiety and depression, increased mortality and care needs. Previous research has addressed prevention of delirium in hospitals and care homes, and there are guidelines on short-term treatment of delirium during admission. However, no studies have addressed the problem of longer-term recovery after delirium and it is currently unknown whether interventions to improve recovery after delirium are effective and cost-effective. The primary objective of this feasibility study is to test a new, theory-informed rehabilitation intervention (RecoverED) in older adults delivered following a hospital admission complicated by delirium to determine whether (a) the intervention is acceptable to individuals with delirium and (b) a definitive trial and parallel economic evaluation of the intervention are feasible. METHODS: The study is a multi-centre, single-arm feasibility study of a rehabilitation intervention with an embedded process evaluation. Sixty participants with delirium (aged > 65 years old) and carer pairs will be recruited from six NHS acute hospitals across the UK. All pairs will be offered the intervention, with follow-up assessments conducted at 3 months and 6 months post-discharge home. The intervention will be delivered in participants' own homes by therapists and rehabilitation support workers for up to 10 intervention sessions over 12 weeks. The intervention will be tailored to individual needs, and the chosen intervention plan and goals will be discussed and agreed with participants and carers. Quantitative data on reach, retention, fidelity and dose will be collected and summarised using descriptive statistics. The feasibility outcomes that will be used to determine whether the study meets the criteria for progression to a definitive randomised controlled trial (RCT) include recruitment, delivery of the intervention, retention, data collection and acceptability of outcome measures. Acceptability of the intervention will be assessed using in-depth, semi-structured qualitative interviews with participants and healthcare professionals. DISCUSSION: Findings will inform the design of a pragmatic multi-centre RCT of the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of the RecoverED intervention for helping the longer-term recovery of people with delirium compared to usual care. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The feasibility study was registered: ISRCTN15676570.

PROTOCOL: Health and social care interventions in the 80 years old and over population: An evidence and gap map.

This is the protocol for a Campbell systematic review. The objectives are as follows: identify available systematic reviews and randomised controlled trials on interventions targeting health or social needs of the people aged over 80; identify qualitative studies relating to the experiences of people aged over 80 of interventions that target their health or social needs; identify areas where systematic reviews are needed; identify gaps in evidence where further primary research is needed; assess equity considerations (using the PROGRESS plus criteria) in available systematic reviews, randomised trials and qualitative studies of identified interventions; assess gaps and evidence related to health equity.

Feasibility of implementing an innovative manual handling risk assessment training program for staff working in long-term care.

BACKGROUND: The Risk Assessment for moving Individuals SafEly (RAISE) program is a hospital-based manual handling nursing training program. RAISE involves upskilling on continual risk assessment during patient-assisted movements. RAISE aims to optimise staff and patient safety while providing the patient with movement and rehabilitation opportunities. Implementation of RAISE in the hospital setting has been established. The aim of this study was to explore the feasibility of implementing RAISE in the long-term care setting. METHODS: We examined three feasibility domains: acceptability, practicality, and limited efficacy (observed nursing behaviour change which has the potential to reduce nursing injuries), using a prospective pilot pre-post design in the long-term care setting. Staff completed a 4-hour training session on RAISE delivered by two physiotherapists, followed by 8 h of supported behaviour change in the workplace. Staff acceptability and practicality of incorporating risk assessment strategies into manual handling approaches were explored through pre- and post-training staff surveys and a semi-structured interview. Resident acceptability of manual handling practices was explored via survey data collected after the RAISE training. Pre to post-training changes in staff knowledge and behaviour were examined through the pre- and post-training staff survey, and observation of staff assisting resident movement. RESULTS: Two enrolled nurses and five residents participated. Staff reported the RAISE program was acceptable and practical to implement in the long-term care setting. There were no adverse events or safety concerns. Staff reported the RAISE program provided guidance and enhanced staff empowerment to make decisions during assisted resident movement. There were 26 observed resident-staff manual handling interactions recorded, with 13 pre-training and 13 post-training. Post-training, RAISE skills had improved and were completed 100% of the time, except for completing a physical risk assessment which improved from 46 to 85%, demonstrating limited efficacy. Residents reported it's important for staff to be trained on how to assist them to mobilise and they found the concept of the RAISE program acceptable. CONCLUSIONS: This pilot study supports the feasibility of long-term care facilities participating in future studies testing the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of the Risk Assessment for moving Individuals SafEly (RAISE) patient and resident manual handling program.

Home-based Extended Rehabilitation for Older people (HERO): study protocol for an individually randomised controlled multi-centre trial to determine the clinical and cost-effectiveness of a home-based exercise intervention for older people with frailty as extended rehabilitation following acute illness or injury, including embedded process evaluation.

BACKGROUND: The majority of older people (> 65 years) in hospital have frailty and are at increased risk of readmission or death following discharge home. In the UK, following acute hospitalisation, around one third of older people with frailty are referred on for rehabilitation, termed 'intermediate care' services. Although this rehabilitation can reduce early readmission to hospital (< 30 days), recipients often do not feel ready to leave the service on discharge, suggesting possible incomplete recovery. Limited evidence suggests extended rehabilitation is of benefit in several conditions and there is preliminary evidence that progressive physical exercise can improve mobility and function for older people with frailty, and slow progression to disability. Our aim is to evaluate the effectiveness of the Home-based Older People's Exercise (HOPE) programme as extended rehabilitation for older people with frailty discharged home from hospital or intermediate care services after acute illness or injury. METHODS: A multi-centre individually randomised controlled trial, to evaluate the clinical and cost-effectiveness of the HOPE programme. This individualised, graded and progressive 24-week exercise programme is delivered by NHS physiotherapy teams to people aged 65 and older with frailty, identified using the Clinical Frailty Scale, following discharge from acute hospitalisation and linked intermediate care rehabilitation pathways. The primary outcome is physical health-related quality of life, measured using the physical component summary score of the modified Short Form 36- item health questionnaire (SF36) at 12 months. Secondary outcomes include self-reported physical and mental health, functional independence, death, hospitalisations, care home admissions. Plans include health economic analyses and an embedded process evaluation. DISCUSSION: This trial seeks to determine if extended rehabilitation, via the HOPE programme, can improve physical health-related quality of life for older people with frailty following acute hospitalisation. Results will improve awareness of the rehabilitation needs of older people with frailty, and provide evidence on the clinical and cost-effectiveness of the targeted exercise intervention. There is potential for considerable benefit for health and social care services through widespread implementation of trial findings if clinical and cost-effectiveness is demonstrated. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN 13927531 . Registered on April 19, 2017.

Community Ageing Research 75+ (CARE75+) REMOTE study: a remote model of recruitment and assessment of the health, well-being and social circumstances of older people.

INTRODUCTION: The Community Ageing Research 75+ (CARE75+) study is a longitudinal cohort study collecting extensive health and social data, with a focus on frailty, independence and quality of life in older age. CARE75+ was the first international experimental frailty research cohort designed using trial within cohorts (TwiCs) methodology, aligning epidemiological research with clinical trial evaluation of interventions to improve the health and well-being of older people. CARE75+ REMOTE is an extension of CARE75+ using a remote model that does not require face-to-face interactions for data collection in the current circumstances of a global pandemic and will provide an efficient, sustainable data collection model. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: Prospective cohort study using TwiCs. One thousand community-dwelling older people (≥75 years) will be recruited from UK general practices by telephone. Exclusions include: nursing home/care home residents; those with an estimated life expectancy of 3 months or less; and people receiving palliative care. DATA COLLECTION: Assessments will be conducted by telephone, web-submission or postal questionnaire: baseline, 6 months, 12 months, 18 months, 24 months, 30 months and 36 months. Measures include activities of daily living, mood, health-related quality of life, comorbidities, medications, frailty, informal care, healthcare and social care service use. Consent will be sought for data linkage and invitations to additional studies (sub-studies). ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: CARE75+ was approved by the National Research Ethics Service (NRES) Committee Yorkshire and the Humber-Bradford Leeds 10 October 2014 (14/YH/1120). CARE75+ REMOTE (amendment 13) was approved on the 18th November 2020. Consent is sought if an individual is willing to participate and has capacity to provide informed consent. Consultee assent is sought if an individual lacks capacity. Results will be disseminated in peer-reviewed scientific journals and conferences. Results will be summarised and disseminated to study participants via newsletters, local engagement events and on a bespoke website. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN16588124.

Cost-effectiveness of the PDSAFE personalised physiotherapy intervention for fall prevention in Parkinson's: an economic evaluation alongside a randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: PDSAFE is an individually-tailored, physiotherapist-delivered, balance, strength and strategy training programme aimed at preventing falls among people with Parkinson's. We evaluated the cost-effectiveness of PDSAFE compared with usual care for people with Parkinson's at higher risk of falling, from a UK National Health Service and Personal Social Service perspective. METHODS: Resource use and quality of life data (EQ-5D-3L) were collected from 238 participants randomised to the PDSAFE intervention and 236 participants randomised to control, at baseline, 3 months, 6 months (primary outcome), and 12 months. Adjusted cost and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) were estimated using generalised linear models and uncertainty estimated using a non-parametric bootstrap. RESULTS: Over 6 months, the PDSAFE intervention was associated with an incremental cost of £925 (95% CI £428 to £1422) and a very small and statistically insignificant QALY gain of 0.008 (95% CI - 0.006 to 0.021). The resulting incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was £120,659 per QALY and the probability of the intervention being cost-effective at a UK threshold of £30,000/QALY was less than 1%. The ICER varied substantially across subgroups although no subgroup had an ICER lower than the £30,000 threshold. The result was sensitive to the time horizon with the ICER reducing to £55,176 per QALY when adopting a 12-month time horizon and assuming a sustained treatment effect on QoL, nevertheless, the intervention was still not cost-effective according to the current UK threshold. CONCLUSIONS: Evidence from this trial suggests that the PDSAFE intervention is unlikely to be cost-effective at 6 months. The 12-month analysis suggested that the intervention became closer to being cost-effective if quality of life effects were sustained beyond the intervention period, however this would require confirmation. Further research, including qualitative studies, should be conducted to better understand the treatment effect of physiotherapy and its impact on quality of life in people with Parkinson's given existing mixed evidence on this topic. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN48152791. Registered 17 April 2014. http://www.isrctn.com/ISRCTN48152791.

Patient-initiated appointment systems for adults with chronic conditions in secondary care.

BACKGROUND: Missed hospital outpatient appointments is a commonly reported problem in healthcare services around the world; for example, they cost the National Health Service (NHS) in the UK millions of pounds every year and can cause operation and scheduling difficulties worldwide. In 2002, the World Health Organization (WHO) published a report highlighting the need for a model of care that more readily meets the needs of people with chronic conditions. Patient-initiated appointment systems may be able to meet this need at the same time as improving the efficiency of hospital appointments. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of patient-initiated appointment systems compared with consultant-led appointment systems for people with chronic or recurrent conditions managed in secondary care. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, and six other databases. We contacted authors of identified studies and conducted backwards and forwards citation searching. We searched for current/ongoing research in two trial registers. Searches were run on 13 March 2019. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised trials, published and unpublished in any language that compared the use of patient-initiated appointment systems to consultant-led appointment systems for adults with chronic or recurrent conditions managed in secondary care if they reported one or more of the following outcomes: physical measures of health status or disease activity (including harms), quality of life, service utilisation or cost, adverse effects, patient or clinician satisfaction, or failures of the 'system'. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently screened all references at title/abstract stage and full-text stage using prespecified inclusion criteria. We resolved disagreements though discussion. Two review authors independently completed data extraction for all included studies. We discussed and resolved discrepancies with a third review author. Where needed, we contacted authors of included papers to provide more information. Two review authors independently assessed the risk of bias using the Cochrane Effective Practice and Organisation of Care 'Risk of bias' tool, resolving any discrepancies with a third review author. Two review authors independently assessed the certainty of the evidence using GRADE. MAIN RESULTS: The 17 included randomised trials (3854 participants; mean age 41 to 76 years; follow-up 12 to 72 months) covered six broad health conditions: cancer, rheumatoid arthritis, asthma, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, psoriasis and inflammatory bowel disease. The certainty of the evidence using GRADE ratings was mainly low to very low. The results suggest that patient-initiated clinics may make little or no difference to anxiety (odds ratio (OR) 0.87, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.68 to 1.12; 5 studies, 1019 participants; low-certainty evidence) or depression (OR 0.79 95% CI 0.51 to 1.23; 6 studies, 1835 participants; low-certainty evidence) compared to the consultant-led appointment system. The results also suggest that patient-initiated clinics may make little or no difference to quality of life (standardised mean difference (SMD) 0.12, 95% CI 0.00 to 0.25; 7 studies, 1486 participants; low-certainty evidence) compared to the consultant-led appointment system. Results for service utilisation (contacts) suggest there may be little or no difference in service utilisation in terms of contacts between the patient-initiated and consultant-led appointment groups; however, the effect is not certain as the rate ratio ranged from 0.68 to 3.83 across the studies (median rate ratio 1.11, interquartile (IQR) 0.93 to 1.37; 15 studies, 3348 participants; low-certainty evidence). It is uncertain if service utilisation (costs) are reduced in the patient-initiated compared to the consultant-led appointment groups (8 studies, 2235 participants; very low-certainty evidence). The results suggest that adverse events such as relapses in some conditions (inflammatory bowel disease and cancer) may have little or no reduction in the patient-initiated appointment group in comparison with the consultant-led appointment group (MD -0.20, 95% CI -0.54 to 0.14; 3 studies, 888 participants; low-certainty evidence). The results are unclear about any differences the intervention may make to patient satisfaction (SMD 0.05, 95% CI -0.41 to 0.52; 2 studies, 375 participants) because the certainty of the evidence is low, as each study used different questions to collect their data at different time points and across different health conditions. Some areas of risk of bias across all the included studies was consistently high (i.e. for blinding of participants and personnel and blinding of outcome assessment, other areas were largely of low risk of bias or were affected by poor reporting making the assessment unclear). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Patient-initiated appointment systems may have little or no effect on patient anxiety, depression and quality of life compared to consultant-led appointment systems. Other aspects of disease status and experience also appear to show little or no difference between patient-initiated and consultant-led appointment systems. Patient-initiated appointment systems may have little or no effect on service utilisation in terms of service contact and there is uncertainty about costs compared to consultant-led appointment systems. Patient-initiated appointment systems may have little or no effect on adverse events such as relapse or patient satisfaction compared to consultant-led appointment systems.

Intervention development and treatment success in UK health technology assessment funded trials of physical rehabilitation: a mixed methods analysis.

OBJECTIVES: Physical rehabilitation is a complex process, and trials of rehabilitation interventions are increasing in number but often report null results. This study aimed to establish treatment success rates in physical rehabilitation trials funded by the National Institute of Health Research Health Technology Assessment (NIHR HTA) programme and examine any relationship between treatment success and the quality of intervention development work undertaken. DESIGN: This is a mixed methods study. SETTING: This study was conducted in the UK. METHODS: The NIHR HTA portfolio was searched for all completed definitive randomised controlled trials of physical rehabilitation interventions from inception to July 2016. Treatment success was categorised according to criteria developed by Djulbegovic and colleagues. Detailed textual data regarding any intervention development work were extracted from trial reports and supporting publications and informed the development of quality ratings. Mixed methods integrative analysis was undertaken to explore the relationship between quantitative and qualitative data using joint displays. RESULTS: Fifteen trials were included in the review. Five reported a definitive finding, four of which were in favour of the 'new' intervention. Eight trials reported a true negative (no difference) outcome. Integrative analysis indicated those with lower quality intervention development work were less likely to report treatment success. CONCLUSIONS: Despite much effort and funding, most physical rehabilitation trials report equivocal findings. Greater focus on high quality intervention development may reduce the likelihood of a null result in the definitive trial, alongside high quality trial methods and conduct.

Exercise- and strategy-based physiotherapy-delivered intervention for preventing repeat falls in people with Parkinson's: the PDSAFE RCT.

BACKGROUND: People with Parkinson's disease are twice as likely to experience a fall as a healthy older person, often leading to debilitating effects on confidence, activity levels and quality of life. OBJECTIVE: To estimate the effect of a physiotherapy programme for fall prevention among people with Parkinson's disease. DESIGN: A multicentre, pragmatic, investigator-masked, individually randomised controlled trial (RCT) with prespecified subgroup analyses. SETTING: Recruitment from NHS hospitals and clinics and community and social services in eight English regions with home-based interventions. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 474 people with Parkinson's disease (i.e. Hoehn and Yahr scale stages 1-4) were recruited: 238 were assigned to a physiotherapy programme and 236 were assigned to usual care. Random allocation was 50 : 50. INTERVENTIONS: All participants received routine care; the usual-care group received an information digital versatile disc (DVD) and a single advice session at trial completion. The intervention group had an individually tailored, progressive, home-based fall avoidance strategy training programme with balance and strengthening exercises: PDSAFE. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome was the risk of repeat falling, collected by self-report monthly diaries between 0 and 6 months after randomisation. Secondary outcomes included near-falls, falls efficacy, freezing of gait (FoG), health-related quality of life, and measurements taken using the Mini-Balance Evaluation Systems Test (Mini-BESTest), the Chair Stand Test (CST), the Geriatric Depression Scale, the Physical Activity Scale for the Elderly and the Parkinson's Disease Questionnaire. RESULTS: PDSAFE is the largest RCT of falls management among people with Parkinson's disease: 541 patients were screened for eligibility. The average age was 72 years, and 266 out of 474 (56%) participants were men. Of the 474 randomised participants, 238 were randomised to the intervention group and 236 were randomised to the control group. No difference in repeat falling within 6 months of randomisation was found [PDSAFE group to control group odds ratio (OR) 1.21, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.74 to 1.98; p = 0.447]. An analysis of secondary outcomes demonstrated better balance (Mini-BESTest: mean difference 0.95, 95% CI 0.24 to 1.67; p = 0.009), functional strength (CST: p = 0.041) and falls efficacy (Falls Efficacy Scale - International: mean difference 1.6, 95% CI -3.0 to -0.19; p = 0.026) with near-falling significantly reduced with PDSAFE (OR 0.67, 95% CI 0.53 to 0.86; p = 0.001) at 6 months. Prespecified subgroup analysis (i.e. disease severity and FoG) revealed a PDSAFE differing effect; the intervention may be of benefit for people with moderate disease but may increase falling for those in the more severe category, especially those with FoG. LIMITATIONS: All participants were assessed at primary outcome; only 73% were assessed at 12 months owing to restricted funding. CONCLUSIONS: PDSAFE was not effective in reducing repeat falling across the range of people with Parkinson's disease in the trial. Secondary analysis demonstrated that other functional tasks and self-efficacy improved and demonstrated differential patterns of intervention impact in accordance with disease severity and FoG, which supports previous secondary research findings and merits further primary evaluation. FUTURE WORK: Further trials of falls prevention on targeted groups of people with Parkinson's disease are recommended. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN48152791. FUNDING: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 23, No. 36. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information. Sarah E Lamb is funded by the NIHR Collaboration for Leadership in Applied Health Research and Care (CLAHRC) at Oxford Health NHS Foundation Trust, the NIHR Oxford Biomedical Research Centre at the Oxford University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust and CLAHRC Oxford. Victoria A Goodwin is supported by the NIHR Collaborations for Leadership in Applied Health Research and Care in the South West Peninsula (PenCLAHRC). Lynn Rochester is supported by the NIHR Newcastle Biomedical Research Centre based at Newcastle upon Tyne Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust and Newcastle University. The research was also supported by the NIHR Newcastle Clinical Research Facility Infrastructure funding. Helen C Roberts is supported by CLAHRC Wessex and the NIHR Southampton Biomedical Research Centre.

People with Parkinson's disease fall often. Falls are scary and make moving about harder. The PDSAFE trial tested a new 'home physiotherapy' programme for reducing falls. People with Parkinson's disease were allocated to one of two groups by chance: they either received the PDSAFE exercises or just normal care. The costs were looked at and people were asked for their views of the PDSAFE exercises. To take part, people had to have Parkinson's disease, live in their own home, be able to walk, have had at least one fall in the previous year and pass a memory test. PDSAFE was taught by physiotherapists and included exercises and fall avoidance strategies. Everyone had to record falls on a monthly calendar, and balance, strength and walking were tested. To our knowledge, this was the largest falls trial looking at people with Parkinson's disease in the world: 541 people took part. The number of falls an individual reported differed a lot between people. When all people with Parkinson's disease in the trial were considered, the physiotherapy programme did not reduce falls in the first 6 months. However, it was found that some people had fewer falls after taking part in the exercises, whereas others did not. Those with more severe Parkinson's disease (i.e. problems with movement, memory and freezing of gait) fell more often after the PDSAFE intervention, even though their balance and confidence improved. Those with good memory, moderate disease and two or three falls in the previous year reacted well to PDSAFE and had fewer falls. It was found that PDSAFE reduced near-falls (about to fall but managed to save themselves) and improved balance and confidence. The physiotherapists and those who took part liked the programme and felt that it helped, but it was expensive to run. In conclusion, a falls prevention programme should be based on each person's needs and a different treatment should be used for those with more severe Parkinson's disease.

A multi-centre, randomised controlled trial of the effectiveness of PDSAFE to prevent falls among people with Parkinson's: study protocol.

BACKGROUND: Falls amongst people with Parkinson's (PwP) result in significant disability and reduced quality of life. There is emerging evidence that exercise-based and physiotherapeutic interventions are of benefit for improving fall risk factors, such as balance. However, the benefit, in terms of preventing falls, is mixed. The development of effective interventions has been identified as the highest research priority for this population. The aim of this trial is to establish the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of a novel, home-based physiotherapy programme, compared with usual care, on falls amongst PwP. METHODS/DESIGN: A UK multi-centre, community-based, single blind, randomised controlled trial with twelve month follow-up, and nested economic evaluation and qualitative studies will be undertaken. Six hundred PwP who live in their own home, have had one or more falls in the previous year and an MMSE score of ≥24 will be recruited. Those living in care homes and those needing assistance from another person to walk indoors will not be eligible. The intervention is a physiotherapist delivered, individually tailored and progressive, home-based programme (PDSAFE) comprising task orientated movement strategy training, functional lower limb strengthening and balance training, of six months duration. Unsupervised daily home exercises and strategies will be practised and supported using technology. Control participants will receive usual care. Data collection will include falls, cognitive state, balance and mobility, fear of falling, freezing of gait, mood, quality of life, carer quality of life and resource use. Data will be collected at baseline, three, six and twelve months. Longitudinal semi-structured interviews will be undertaken with forty participants to explore the expectations and experiences of participants. The primary outcome is risk of repeat falling at six months post-randomisation. DISCUSSION: The aims of this trial are to establish the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of a novel, home-delivered physiotherapy intervention (PDSAFE) compared with usual care on risk of falling for PwP who have a history of falling. PDSAFE is a novel intervention that builds upon the existing literature and targeting known risk factors, being the first study that uses a novel delivery modus (technology) in conjunction with traditional physiotherapeutic approaches. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN48152791.

Frailty, financial resources and subjective well-being in later life.

Though frailty status has recently been linked to poorer quality of life, the impact of income on this relationship has not previously been investigated. Data from a population-based panel study, the English Longitudinal Study of Aging, on 3225 participants aged 65-79 years were analyzed cross-sectionally. A Frailty Index (FI) was determined for each participant as a proportion of accumulated deficits and participants were categorized into four groups on the basis of their FI score: very fit (0.00-0.10), well (0.11-0.14), vulnerable (0.15-0.24), and frail (≥0.25). Subjective well-being was assessed using the CASP-19 instrument, and levels of financial resources quantified using a range of questions about assets and income from a range of sources. Linear regression models were used to assess the relationship between frailty and well-being. There was a significant negative correlation between frailty and well-being; the correlation coefficient between FI and CASP-19 scores was -0.58. The relationship was robust to adjustment for sex, age, and relevant health behaviors (smoking and physical activity) and persisted when participants with depressive symptoms were excluded from analysis. Those with greater financial resources reported better subjective well-being with evidence of a "dose-response" effect. The poorest participants in each frailty category had similar well-being to the most well-off with worse frailty status. Hence, while the association between frailty and poorer subjective well-being is not significantly impacted by higher levels of wealth and income, financial resources may provide a partial buffer against the detrimental psychological effects of frailty.

An exercise intervention to prevent falls in Parkinson's: an economic evaluation.

BACKGROUND: People with Parkinson's (PwP) experience frequent and recurrent falls. As these falls may have devastating consequences, there is an urgent need to identify cost-effective interventions with the potential to reduce falls in PwP. The purpose of this economic evaluation is to compare the costs and cost-effectiveness of a targeted exercise programme versus usual care for PwP who were at risk of falling. METHODS: One hundred and thirty participants were recruited through specialist clinics, primary care and Parkinson's support groups and randomised to either an exercise intervention or usual care. Health and social care utilisation and health-related quality of life (EQ-5D) were assessed over the 20 weeks of the study (ten-week intervention period and ten-week follow up period), and these data were complete for 93 participants. Incremental cost per quality adjusted life year (QALY) was estimated. The uncertainty around costs and QALYs was represented using cost-effectiveness acceptability curves. RESULTS: The mean cost of the intervention was £76 per participant. Although in direction of favour of exercise intervention, there was no statistically significant differences between groups in total healthcare (-£128, 95% CI: -734 to 478), combined health and social care costs (£-35, 95% CI: -817 to 746) or QALYs (0.03, 95% CI: -0.02 to 0.03) at 20 weeks. Nevertheless, exploration of the uncertainty surrounding these estimates suggests there is more than 80% probability that the exercise intervention is a cost-effective strategy relative to usual care. CONCLUSION: Whilst we found no difference between groups in total healthcare, total social care cost and QALYs, analyses indicate that there is high probability that the exercise intervention is cost-effective compared with usual care. These results require confirmation by larger trial-based economic evaluations and over the longer term.

Factors influencing the implementation of fall-prevention programmes: a systematic review and synthesis of qualitative studies.

BACKGROUND: More than a third of people over the age of 65 years fall each year. Falling can lead to a reduction in quality of life, mortality, and a risk of prolonged hospitalisation. Reducing and preventing falls has become an international health priority. To help understand why research evidence has often not been translated into changes in clinical practice, we undertook a systematic review and synthesis of qualitative research in order to identify what factors serve as barriers and facilitators to the successful implementation of fall-prevention programmes. METHODS: We conducted a review of literature published between 1980 and January 2012 for qualitative research studies that examined barriers and facilitators to the effective implementation of fall-prevention interventions among community-dwelling older people and healthcare professionals. Two reviewers independently screened studies for inclusion, extracted data, and assessed methodological quality according to predefined criteria. Findings were synthesised using meta-ethnography. RESULTS: Of the 5010 articles identified through database searching, 19 were included in the review. Analysis of the 19 studies revealed limited information about the mechanisms by which barriers to implementation of fall-prevention interventions had been overcome. Data synthesis produced three overarching concepts: (1) practical considerations, (2) adapting for community, and (3) psychosocial. A line of argument synthesis describes the barriers and facilitators to the successful implementation of fall-prevention programmes. These concepts show that the implementation of fall-prevention programmes is complex and multifactorial. This is the first systematic review and synthesis of qualitative studies to examine factors influencing the implementation of fall-prevention programmes from the perspectives of both the healthcare professional and the community-dwelling older person. CONCLUSIONS: The current literature on barriers and facilitators to the implementation of fall-prevention programmes examines a variety of interventions. However, the ways in which the interventions are reported suggests there are substantial methodological challenges that often inhibit implementation into practice. We recommend that successful implementation requires individuals, professionals, and organisations to modify established behaviours, thoughts, and practice. The issues identified through this synthesis need to be fully considered and addressed if fall-prevention programmes are to be successfully implemented into clinical practice.