ArticleJournal of foot and ankle research2026
Acceptability of Minimalist Shoes Compared With Balance-Enhancing Shoes in Older Women: Protocol for a Randomised Crossover Trial.
Article in Journal of foot and ankle research, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Acceptability of Minimalist Shoes Compared With Balance-Enhancing Shoes in Older Women: Protocol for a Randomised Crossover Trial.Journal of foot and ankle research · 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
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
introductionFalls are a major concern for older women and can result in significant injury. Footwear has been shown to improve or impair balance performance in older women, contingent upon footwear design features. Balance-enhancing shoes may reduce the risk of falling but their acceptability is unknown. Acceptability is important because it influences the level of adherence to the intervention. The aim of this trial protocol is to describe the methodology of a randomised crossover trial to compare the acceptability of balance-enhancing outdoor shoes versus minimalist outdoor shoes in older women and compare the effects of these two interventions on the perceived risk of falling and balance performance.
methodsThe trial will use a randomised two-period crossover trial methodology. We will recruit 44 community-dwelling women aged 65 years or older who will be randomised to receive a pair of minimalist shoes (Basic Lace Up Canvas Shoes, Kmart Australia Ltd, Mulgrave, Australia) or a pair of balance-enhancing shoes (Balla Balance Leather Lace Up Boots, Ziera Australia, Abbotsford, Australia), which encompass key features known to be beneficial for balance such as adequate fixation, a firm heel counter, high heel collar, firm midsole and textured insole. The order of the interventions will be randomised. Cross-over to the second shoe condition will occur at 6 weeks. Outcome measures will be collected at baseline, six and 12 weeks; the primary endpoint for assessing footwear acceptability for each shoe condition will be 6 weeks. The primary outcome measure will be footwear acceptability, evaluated using a modified version of the Monitor Orthopaedic Shoes Questionnaire. Secondary outcome measures include perceived risk of falling (the Falls Efficacy Scale International) and balance performance (upper body stability when walking, using the GyKo wearable sensor). DISCUSSION: This trial will evaluate the acceptability, perceived risk of falling and balance performance of minimalist shoes versus balance-enhancing shoes. The findings will provide much-needed evidence as to the acceptability of these two shoe types in older women. Such information may support footwear design to increase balance performance and reduce risk of falling.
trial registrationAustralian and New Zealand Clinical Trial Registry (ACTRN12624001496505).
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.