ArticlePEC innovation2022
Process evaluation findings of a fall prevention and management program for wheelchair and scooter users with multiple sclerosis.
Article in PEC innovation, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Translation, extension, and evaluation of usability, usefulness, and safety of a fall prevention and management program for people living with spinal cord injury and multiple sclerosis who use wheelchairs or scooters full time.Frontiers in rehabilitation sciences · 2024Article
- A process evaluation of an on-line fall prevention and management program for individuals who use wheelchairs or scooters living with multiple sclerosis.Frontiers in public health · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: To describe process evaluation findings of a clinical trial to evaluate the Methods: A mixed-methods process evaluation focusing on implementation and mechanisms of impact (MOI) was conducted. Both iROLL participants and trainers (licensed occupational or physical therapists) provided input. Results: Seventeen iROLL participants and nine trainers participated. The overall session attendance rate was 93%. Content and logistics fidelity were 95% and 90%, respectively and average overall participant satisfaction rating was 4.7/5.0. Five MOI themes emerged: group dynamic, comprehensive nature of the program, strong program development, role of a skilled interventionist, and motivated participants. Recruitment challenged program reach. Conclusion: iROLL is acceptable to the target audience, can be delivered with high fidelity and has diverse and interacting mechanisms of impact operating. Remote delivery may improve reach. Innovation: Effective iROLL delivery requires trainers with strong group management skills who can also individualize material while maintaining program fidelity. Comprehensive training and on-going support of the occupational and physical therapists delivering iROLL bolsters program effectiveness. Program access may improve with online delivery.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.