| Research objective |
Methods/tools used |
Statistical analysis used |
| 1. Identify perceptions of PLWD and their caregivers of the causes and consequences of falls; the importance and meaning attributed to falls and falls prevention; and the provision of falls prevention information |
Semi-structured interviews §
Reflective journal § |
Thematic analysis using grounded theory approach |
| 2. Identify the context for the PLWD and their caregiver to understand the current level of dementia severity; function; activity level; self-efficacy; and caregiver burden. |
Questionnaires:
Demographic characteristics of CG and PLWD
DSRS § (CG rated for PLWD)
ADCS § (CG rated for PLWD)
CHAMPS § (PLWD)
Icon-FES § (PLWD)
Generalised Self Efficacy Scale § (CG)
Zarit Carer Burden Interview § (CG) |
Used to inform intervention phase, but not statistically analysed |
| 3. Identify individual risk factors for falls for the PLWD, and readiness to change behaviour for these risk factors |
FROP-Com § (PLWD)
Readiness to change behaviour questionnaire § |
Used to inform intervention phase, but not statistically analysed |
| 4. Present options, facilitate decision making and support behaviour change to address individual risk factors |
Modified Ottawa decision aid Φ
Goal setting and action plans Φ
Readiness to change behaviour questionnaire Φ |
Used to inform intervention phase, but not statistically analysed |
| 5. Evaluate change in falls rate; falls risk; self-efficacy; carer burden; and engagement of the caregiver |
Falls calendars recording a fall event
FROP-Com ∞ ♯
Generalised Self Efficacy Scale ∞ ♯ (CG)
Zarit Carer Burden Interview ∞ ♯ (CG)
Therapeutic Engagement Index Φ |
Calculate rate of falls per 1000 days
Analysis of change over three time points using one-way ANOVA measures for each of these measures (F; df; p)
Post-hoc pairwise comparisons between time-points (mean difference, 95% CI)
|
| 6. Examine factors associated with readiness to change behaviour
|
Demographic characteristics of CG and PLWD §
DSRS §∞ ♯ (CG rated for PLWD)
ADCS §∞ ♯ (CG rated for PLWD)
Generalised Self Efficacy Scale §∞ ♯ (CG)
Zarit Carer Burden Interview §∞ ♯ (CG)
Iconographical Falls Efficacy Scale (PLWD) §∞ ♯
CHAMPS (PLWD) §∞ ♯
Readiness to change behaviour questionnaire Φ
Treatment measures considered:
- Number of strategies considered for each falls risk factor
- Number of goals successfully met
- Adherence to recommended strategies ∞ ♯
- Engagement with the intervention (TEI) Φ
|
The association between baseline characteristics and initial readiness to change a falls risk factor measured using multiple logistic regression analysis (adjusted odds ratio, 95% CI)
Categorical identification of number of strategies used and goals successfully met (yes/no) (mean, 95% CI)
Adherence calculated as a proportion measure, the percentage of strategies in use compared with total recommended strategies.
Caregiver engagement scores are summed for each session and then across all sessions for a total score (mean, 95% CI)
One-way ANOVA used to examine differences between treatment measures and readiness to change behaviour [F, df, p]. Post hoc pairwise comparisons between levels of behaviour change scale (mean difference, 95%CI)
Chi square analysis for describing change in readiness from initial to final session |
| 7. Explore change in knowledge and understanding of falls prevention; causes and consequences of falls; and the factors related to adopting falls prevention strategies for PLWD and their caregivers |
Semi-structured interview at 6 months ∞
Survey at 12 months ♯
Falls calendar notes Φ
Reflective journal Φ
Case notes, goal setting and action plans recorded at each home visit Φ |
Thematic analysis of 6-month interview data, falls calendar notes, case notes, reflective journal and 12-month survey data |
| 8. Facilitate community care staff to identify their knowledge and implement falls prevention best practice for PLWD and their caregivers |
Knowledge survey
Action research process (audio-taped and notes taken)
Development of a discussion/decision aid |
Thematic analysis of notes fed back into action research cycle, utilising principles of the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (see Trial Status section for more detail) |
