Background: Bicycles are environment-friendly and is an effective physical activity intervention to decrease risk of non-communicable diseases. Family physicians and primary care workers play a key role in promoting its usage, including addressing safety concerns through the use of bicycle helmet use. The uptake of bicycle helmets is low in many settings. We aimed to understand facilitators and barriers to bicycle helmet use. Method: We searched five major electronic databases, screened references and manually searched conference abstracts for qualitative studies that focused on facilitators and barriers to bicycle helmet use. We critically appraised the studies using the Critical Appraisal Skills Programme (CASP) checklist and used PROGRESS-Plus tool for an equity-focused analysis. We conducted a thematic synthesis for analysis and used GRADE-CERQual to report confidence in findings. Results: We included 15 studies from high-income countries. We identified 4 themes: 1. Perceptions on helmet design, it’s quality and cost together with experiences influencing helmet use (10 studies, low confidence); 2. Perceived risk and benefits of helmet use through a gender lens (10 studies, moderate confidence); 3. Parental strategies influencing children’s behavior regarding helmet use (6 studies, moderate confidence); 4. Adoption and enforcement of laws that shape perception and usage of bicycle helmets (8 studies, very low confidence). Conclusion: Our study identified facilitators and barriers and can be considered for developing programs and strategies to influence bicycle helmet use, but the confidence in findings is not high. Family physicians and primary care workers should consider these factors when promoting bicycle helmet for injury prevention. There is a need for more qualitative studies in different contexts to develop more robust evidence.

No abstract

There have been many geriatric tools developed to assess health status targeting especially for older adults from developed nations but not context specific. Whereas finger count tools are available for LMICs, especially the South Asia population. CGA, as opposed to medical examination, uses multiple tools to capture a holistic health status of the older adults in line with the more comprehensive WHO definition of health. It includes a harmonized evaluation of the clinical, functional, psychological, environmental and social health status of older population. Although there is no standardized format for carrying out CGA, there is broad consensus on the domains that need to be measured. For the better caring of culturally diverse South Asian older population, we need to develop more culturally competent CGHA tools. So, this review summarised studies that describe validated tools for assessing geriatric health in community settings in South Asia. We followed Arksey and O Malleys five-stage scoping review framework, refined with the Joanna Briggs Institute methodology, to identify the research questions, identify relevant studies, select studies, chart the data, and collate and summarize the data. Using the PRISMA-ScR guidelines, a search of 3 databases (PubMed, Embase and PsychInfo was undertaken. After applying eligibility criteria to 607 articles, only 46 studies met the inclusion criteria. 7 studies reported on medical assessment, 4 studies assessed psychological condition,6 studies assessed functional issue,2 studies assessed social wellbeing and 9 studies reported on different domains. None study measured all domains. 24 tools calibrated with Gold standard measure, were validated and reliable by assessed with psychometric properties such as sensitivity, specificity, PPV, NPV and ROC-AUC. Meanwhile, 21 tools were validated exclusively for older adults, whereas there are no validated tools available for CGHA in South Asia. This review will guide us for development of CGHA tools or adaptation of existing tools in our context. As well, it will help practitioners to develop tools to measure comprehensive health of the elderly in their context.