Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35210345›Full record

ArticleBMJ open2022

Acceptability of a perturbation-based balance training programme for falls prevention in older adults: a qualitative study.

Marissa H G Gerards, Judith Sieben, Rik Marcellis, Rob A de Bie, Kenneth Meijer, Antoine F Lenssen

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ open, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
14citing papers in PubMed
15.6field-weighted citation impact, top 1% 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

14 citing papers in PubMed, 37 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Dose-response relationship of treadmill perturbation-based balance training for improving reactive balance in older adults at risk of falling: results of the FEATURE randomized controlled pilot trial.European review of aging and physical activity : official journal of the European Group for Research into Elderly and Physical Activity · 2025
    Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
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

6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Marissa H G GerardsDepartment of Physical Therapy, Maastricht University Medical Center+, Maastricht, The Netherlands marissa.gerards@maastrichtuniversity.nl.ORCID 0000-0001-7388-2356
Judith SiebenDepartment of Epidemiology, Care and Public Health Institute (CAPHRI), Maastricht University, Maastricht, The Netherlands.
Rik MarcellisDepartment of Physical Therapy, Maastricht University Medical Center+, Maastricht, The Netherlands.
Rob A de BieDepartment of Epidemiology, Care and Public Health Institute (CAPHRI), Maastricht University, Maastricht, The Netherlands.
Kenneth MeijerDepartment of Nutrition and Movement Sciences, School of Nutrition and Translational Research in Metabolism (NUTRIM), Maastricht University, Maastricht, The Netherlands.
Antoine F LenssenDepartment of Physical Therapy, Maastricht University Medical Center+, Maastricht, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0003-3627-4452
Maastricht University · NL

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionPerturbation-based balance training (PBT) is reported to effectively reduce falls in older adults and may even be superior compared with various exercise programmes. Due to the nature of the intervention, requiring unpredictable balance perturbations, the question arises whether acceptability is an issue in PBT.

objectiveTo evaluate the acceptability of PBT in older adults with a recent history of falls. DESIGN, METHOD, PARTICIPANTS AND

settingThis is a qualitative study in which semistructured interviews were conducted in 16 older adults (14 women and 2 men, mean age 73.6±6.0 years) who completed a three-session PBT protocol as part of another study in a university medical centre in the Netherlands. Typical case and purposive sampling strategies were applied. Interviews were based on the theoretical framework of acceptability (TFA) alongside context-specific factors and analysed using a template analysis approach.

resultsThe results indicate that this PBT protocol is perceived as acceptable by older adults with a recent history of falls and highlight key areas for potential future modifications. Enjoyment of the novel training and technology, being able to feel safe during training, and perceived impact of increased self-efficacy and balance confidence were identified as facilitating factors. Potential issues included initial apprehension or anxiety during training and perceived impact being predominantly psychological instead of physical. Complementary to the TFA one additional theme emerged which described challenges regarding the training setting, such as preference for group training in some participants and travel to the training location.

conclusionsThe results suggest that PBT is perceived acceptable by older adults with a history of falls. Increasing the social aspect of training and sharing the experiences of peers may be considered to enhance acceptability to new participants who initially feel apprehensive or anxious about their ability to participate in future implementation of PBT. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: The article is linked to a randomised clinical trial registered on https://www.trialregister.nl/trial/7680, NL7680; Results.

Indexed as

Exercise TherapyPostural BalanceAgedFemaleHumansMaleQualitative ResearchSelf Efficacygeriatric medicinepreventive medicinequalitative researchrehabilitation medicine

Identifiers

PMID35210345
PMCPMC8883254
OpenAlexW4213413402

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.