Fall prevention interventions for older community-dwelling adults: systematic reviews on benefits, harms, and patient values and preferences.

BACKGROUND: An estimated 20-30% of community-dwelling Canadian adults aged 65 years or older experience one or more falls each year. Fall-related injuries are a leading cause of hospitalization and can lead to functional independence. Many fall prevention interventions, often based on modifiable risk factors, have been studied. Apart from the magnitude of the benefits and harms from different interventions, the preferences of older adults for different interventions as well as the relative importance they place on the different potential outcomes may influence recommendations by guideline panels. These reviews on benefits and harms of interventions, and on patient values and preferences, will inform the Canadian Task Force on Preventive Health Care to develop recommendations on fall prevention for primary care providers. METHODS: To review the benefits and harms of fall prevention interventions, we will update a previous systematic review of randomized controlled trials with adaptations to modify the classification of interventions and narrow the scope to community-dwelling older adults and primary-care relevant interventions. Four databases (MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Ageline), reference lists, trial registries, and relevant websites will be searched, using limits for randomized trials and date (2016 onwards). We will classify interventions according to the Prevention of Falls Network Europe (ProFANE) Group's taxonomy. Outcomes include fallers, falls, injurious falls, fractures, hip fractures, institutionalization, health-related quality of life, functional status, and intervention-related adverse effects. For studies not included in the previous review, screening, study selection, data extraction on outcomes, and risk of bias assessments will be independently undertaken by two reviewers with consensus used for final decisions. Where quantitative analysis is suitable, network or pairwise meta-analysis will be conducted using a frequentist approach in Stata. Assessment of the transitivity and coherence of the network meta-analyses will be undertaken. For the reviews on patient preferences and outcome valuation (relative importance of outcomes), we will perform de novo reviews with searches in three databases (MEDLINE, PsycInfo, and CINAHL) and reference lists for cross-sectional, longitudinal quantitative, or qualitative studies published from 2000. Selection, data extraction, and risk of bias assessments suitable for each study design will be performed in duplicate. The analysis will be guided by a narrative synthesis approach, which may include meta-analysis for health-state utilities. We will use the CINeMa approach to a rate the certainty of the evidence for outcomes on intervention effects analyzed using network meta-analysis and the GRADE approach for all other outcomes. DISCUSSION: We will describe the flow of literature and characteristics of all studies and present results of all analyses and summary of finding tables. We will compare our findings to others and discuss the limitations of the reviews and the available literature. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: This protocol has not been registered.

Patients' Attitudes Toward Nonphysician Screening of Low Back and Low Back Related Leg Pain Complaints Referred for Surgical Assessment.

STUDY DESIGN: A questionnaire survey. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to explore patient attitudes toward screening to assess suitability for low back surgery by nonphysician health care providers. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Canadian spine surgeons have shown support for nonphysician screening to assess and triage patients with low back pain and low back related leg pain. However, patients' attitudes toward this proposed model are largely unknown. METHODS: We administered a 19-item cross-sectional survey to adults with low back and/or low back related leg pain who were referred for elective surgical assessment at one of five spine surgeons' clinics in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. The survey inquired about demographics, expectations regarding wait time for surgical consultation, as well as willingness to pay, travel, and be screened by nonphysician health care providers. RESULTS: Eighty low back patients completed our survey, for a response rate of 86.0% (80 of 93). Most respondents (72.5%; 58 of 80) expected to be seen by a surgeon within 3 months of referral, and 88.8% (71 of 80) indicated willingness to undergo screening with a nonphysician health care provider to establish whether they were potentially a surgical candidate. Half of respondents (40 of 80) were willing to travel >50 km for assessment by a nonphysician health care provider, and 46.2% were willing to pay out-of-pocket (25.6% were unsure). However, most respondents (70.0%; 56 of 80) would still want to see a surgeon if they were ruled out as a surgical candidate, and written comments from respondents revealed concern regarding agreement between surgeons' and nonphysicians' determination of surgical candidates. CONCLUSION: Patients referred for surgical consultation for low back or low back related leg pain are largely willing to accept screening by nonphysician health care providers. Future research should explore the concordance of screening results between surgeon and nonphysician health care providers. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 3.

Interprofessional education through shadowing experiences in multi-disciplinary clinical settings.

The World Health Organization has recently added Interprofessional Education (IPE) to its global health agenda recognizing it as a necessary component of all health professionals' education. We suggest mandatory interprofessional shadowing experiences as a mechanism to be used by chiropractic institutions to address this agenda. IPE initiatives of other professions (pharmacy and medicine) are described along with chiropractic. This relative comparison of professions local to our jurisdiction in Ontario, Canada is made so that the chiropractic profession may take note that they are behind other health care providers in implementing IPE.Interprofessional shadowing experiences would likely take place in a multi-disciplinary clinical setting. We offer an example of how two separate professions within a Family Health Team (FHT) can work together in such a setting to enhance both student learning and patient care. For adult learners, using interprofessional shadowing experiences with learner-derived and active objectives across diverse health professional groups may help to improve the educational experience. Mandatory interprofessional shadowing experiences for chiropractors during their training can enhance future collaborative practice and provide success in reaching a goal common to each profession - improved patient care.