ArticlePhysical therapy2025
Health Care Professionals' Views of Barriers and Facilitators for Implementing a Fall Risk Screening Tool in Clinical and Public Health Settings.
Article in Physical therapy, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveThe experiences of health care professionals using new screening tools in clinical and public health settings are crucial to the implementation process. However, further research is needed on their experiences with fall risk screening. This study utilized the integrated-Promoting Action on Research Implementation in Health Services (i-PARIHS) framework to explore health care professionals' experiences with the First-time Injurious Falls (FIF) screening tool, aiming to identify barriers and facilitators for implementing the FIF tool in primary health care and public health settings.
methodsA qualitative study with 4 focus group interviews and 7 individual interviews was carried out, using a semistructured interview guide. The interviews were recorded, transcribed verbatim, and analyzed with reflexive thematic analysis. The study included 20 participants (13 females and 7 males), with a mean age of 39 years (range 24 to 54). The participants were working in the primary health care setting (8 physical therapists, 3 occupational therapists, 3 managers, 2 registered nurses, and 1 dietician) and in a public health project (1 physical therapist and 2 health educators).
resultsThe analysis resulted in 3 themes: "a valuable tool in clinical practice," "how to get everyone onboard when implementing fall risk screening," and "applicable in many areas of health services but not in all" with 4 related subthemes "quick and easy to use for all health care professionals," "simplifies assessment and creates a platform for discussion," "need for clear instructions and action list," and "should be incorporated into daily routines."
conclusionThe FIF tool was well-received by participants in practice as it was user-friendly and potentially effective in preventing falls. However, there is room for improvement, particularly in clarifying instructions to mitigate possible misinterpretations. The participants emphasized that implementation of a new screening tool requires favorable organizational conditions such as managerial support, that the tool is easily accessible, and the results are easy to document. IMPACT: The FIF tool seems to be a valuable screening tool for predicting first-time injurious falls in older adults, suitable for use by various health care professionals.
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.