Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32800005›Full record

ArticlePrimary health care research & development2019

Natasher Lafond, Asiya Maula, Steve Iliffe, Kavita Vedhara, Sarah Audsley, Denise Kendrick, Elizabeth Orton

Open access · goldAbstract readEvaluation StudyMulticenter Study
In one paragraph

Article in Primary health care research & development, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
1.0field-weighted citation impact, top 21% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 7 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Natasher LafondResearch Fellow, University of Nottingham, School of Medicine, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0003-4526-9006
Asiya MaulaACF GPR, University of Nottingham, School of Medicine, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0001-7875-2374
Steve IliffeProfessor of Primary Care for Older People (Now Emeritus Professor), University College London, Research Department of Primary Care & Population Health, United Kingdom.
Kavita VedharaProfessor of Health Psychology, University of Nottingham, School of Medicine, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0002-9940-7534
Sarah AudsleyPosdoctoral fellow, University of Nottingham, School of Medicine, United Kingdom.
Denise KendrickProfessor of Primary Care Research, University of Nottingham, School of Medicine, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0003-3603-6542
Elizabeth OrtonAssociate Professor and Consultant in Public Health, University of Nottingham, School of Medicine, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0002-2531-8846
University of Nottingham · GBUniversity College London · GB

Funding

Department of Health 264
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

aimTo explore the experiences of older adults participating in strength and balance exercise programmes and understand participants' rationale for programme uptake and completion.

backgroundRegular physical activity, specifically strength and balance exercises, has been shown to improve health and well-being and reduce the risk of falling in older adults. With the number of people living into older age increasing, understanding older people's experiences of strength and balance programmes and what encourages their take-up and completion is extremely important. This paper reports on the qualitative experiences of older adults that previously participated in ProAct65+, a randomised controlled trial of Falls Management Exercise (FaME) programme and Otago Exercise Programme (OEP) versus usual care.

methodsTen general practices in Nottinghamshire and Derbyshire, England, who participated in the ProAct65+ trial were approached to take part. Using maximum variation sampling (age, gender, falls history, fear of falling and trial arm) we recruited, via the practices, 30 people that had participated in the FaME (n = 15) or OEP (n = 15) trial arms. Participants were interviewed in their own homes. Interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed verbatim and thematically analysed.

findingsWe identified five themes: choice of exercise programme; commitment, discipline and motivation; benchmarking, feedback and monitoring; benefits of the exercise programmes and reactions to the end of the programmes. There were four sub-themes within the benefits theme: pleasure and boredom, social interaction and isolation, physical benefits, and knowledge and understanding.This study has outlined the experiences and identified specific barriers and facilitators to uptake and completion of falls-prevention exercises by older adults. The perspective and experiences of these participants is important if programmes are to be designed to meet the needs of the target population. Insights from this study will enable commissioners to develop and provide appropriate falls-prevention exercise programmes that encourage high uptake and programme completion.

Indexed as

Accidental FallsAgedAged, 80 and overEnglandExercise TherapyFemaleGeriatric AssessmentHumansMaleMotivationPatient ComplianceProgram EvaluationQualitative Researchbarriers and facilitatorsfalls-preventionolder peoplephysical activity

Identifiers

PMID32800005
PMCPMC6609972
OpenAlexW2954035179

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.