ArticleFrontiers in health services2025
From research to practice: a pilot implementation study of a falls self-efficacy tool in a community hospital.
Article in Frontiers in health services, 2025. 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.
- From information to action- a phase-based analysis of patient engagement in inpatient fall prevention: A scoping review.International journal of nursing studies advances · 2026Review
- Development of a short-form balance recovery confidence (SF-BRC) scale.Journal of clinical and translational science · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Inpatient falls are serious adverse events that contribute to functional decline and adverse outcomes. Overconfidence in mobility, and reluctance to seek assistance, are often difficult for staff to detect in the absence of a structured tool. The Multidimensional Falls Efficacy Scale (MdFES) was developed to assess patients' confidence across fall prevention, recovery, and self-protection domains. This pilot implementation feasibility study evaluated the early adoption of the MdFES in a community hospital, using the Proctor Implementation Outcomes framework to examine patient and nurse perspectives. Methods: A mixed-methods pilot was conducted in Singapore community hospitals involving 90 patients and 32 nurses. Quantitative data were collected across multiple implementation outcomes-including acceptability, appropriateness, feasibility, cost, and fidelity-using structured questionnaires, with results reported as mean ± SD. Qualitative data from open-ended responses were thematically analysed to identify barriers and facilitators to MdFES implementation. Results: Patients reported high acceptability [Acceptability of Intervention Measure (AIM)] = 17.48 ± 2.66) and appropriateness [Intervention Appropriateness Measure (IAM)] = 17.54 ± 2.75), with 80% agreeing with their MdFES results and an average completion time of 3.12 ± 2.23 min, indicating low perceived burden. In contrast, nurses reported moderate acceptability (AIM = 12.72 ± 2.11), appropriateness (IAM = 13.19 ± 3.17), and feasibility [Feasibility of Intervention Measure (FIM)] = 13.47 ± 2.66), citing language barriers, cognitive limitations, and workflow constraints as key challenges. Fidelity was affected, with frequent rewording and translation required. Qualitative themes highlighted the need for translated versions, simplified wording, and workflow integration. Conclusion: This pilot feasibility study demonstrates that the MdFES is acceptable and meaningful to patients, while revealing modifiable feasibility challenges for nurses. These early findings provide essential insights to guide workflow adaptations, stakeholder engagement, and contextual modifications required before proceeding to a larger-scale, multi-centre implementation study.
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.