Making sense of a cognitive behavioural therapy intervention for fear of falling: qualitative study of intervention development

Finch, Tracy; Bamford, Claire; Deary, Vincent; Sabin, Neil; Parry, Steve W.

doi:10.1186/1472-6963-14-436

Cited by 14 publications

(10 citation statements)

References 28 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Coupe et al [ 27 ] UK NPT Collaborative care for depression Yes Process evaluation Qualitative Retrospective Yes Yes Yes 9. Finch et al [ 28 ] UK NPT Cognitive behavioural therapy Systematic review [ 156 ] Yes Feasibility study Qualitative Prospective Yes Yes N/A 10. Furler et al [ 29 – 31 ] Australia NPT Diabetes management in primary care Yes Process evaluation Qualitative Prospective Yes Yes No 11.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…They used NPT in ‘identifying and describing the components and sub-components of the intervention’ to understand ‘the nuances associated with collective implementation’. The next most numerous group of studies focused on the implementation of diagnostic and therapeutic interventions ( n = 28, 25.9% [ 19 , 24 – 26 , 28 – 31 , 36 , 37 , 47 , 48 , 55 – 57 , 67 , 69 , 78 , 80 , 90 , 95 , 97 , 98 , 103 , 104 , 111 , 117 , 123 , 126 , 137 , 142 , 143 ]). For example, in the USA, Hoberg et al [ 98 ] examined the implementation of a new form of group therapy for people with mental health problems, while Leon et al [ 48 ] showed how provider initiated testing and counselling for HIV was successfully normalised in a South African setting.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Other papers reflected in more general terms on NPT’s empirical grounding (e.g. [ 28 , 50 , 52 , 67 , 73 – 75 , 87 , 114 , 122 ]) and its usefulness in thinking about implementation design (e.g. [ 27 , 33 , 67 , 106 , 147 , 202 , 203 ]).…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Using Normalization Process Theory in feasibility studies and process evaluations of complex healthcare interventions: a systematic review

et al. 2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundNormalization Process Theory (NPT) identifies, characterises and explains key mechanisms that promote and inhibit the implementation, embedding and integration of new health techniques, technologies and other complex interventions. A large body of literature that employs NPT to inform feasibility studies and process evaluations of complex healthcare interventions has now emerged. The aims of this review were to review this literature; to identify and characterise the uses and limits of NPT in research on the implementation and integration of healthcare interventions; and to explore NPT’s contribution to understanding the dynamics of these processes.MethodsA qualitative systematic review was conducted. We searched Web of Science, Scopus and Google Scholar for articles with empirical data in peer-reviewed journals that cited either key papers presenting and developing NPT, or the NPT Online Toolkit (www.normalizationprocess.org). We included in the review only articles that used NPT as the primary approach to collection, analysis or reporting of data in studies of the implementation of healthcare techniques, technologies or other interventions. A structured data extraction instrument was used, and data were analysed qualitatively.ResultsSearches revealed 3322 citations. We show that after eliminating 2337 duplicates and broken or junk URLs, 985 were screened as titles and abstracts. Of these, 101 were excluded because they did not fit the inclusion criteria for the review. This left 884 articles for full-text screening. Of these, 754 did not fit the inclusion criteria for the review. This left 130 papers presenting results from 108 identifiable studies to be included in the review. NPT appears to provide researchers and practitioners with a conceptual vocabulary for rigorous studies of implementation processes. It identifies, characterises and explains empirically identifiable mechanisms that motivate and shape implementation processes. Taken together, these mean that analyses using NPT can effectively assist in the explanation of the success or failure of specific implementation projects. Ten percent of papers included critiques of some aspect of NPT, with those that did mainly focusing on its terminology. However, two studies critiqued NPT emphasis on agency, and one study critiqued NPT for its normative focus.ConclusionsThis review demonstrates that researchers found NPT useful and applied it across a wide range of interventions. It has been effectively used to aid intervention development and implementation planning as well as evaluating and understanding implementation processes themselves. In particular, NPT appears to have offered a valuable set of conceptual tools to aid understanding of implementation as a dynamic process.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (10.1186/s13012-018-0758-1) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Using Normalization Process Theory in feasibility studies and process evaluations of complex healthcare interventions: a systematic review

et al. 2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…2a. The aim of this phase of the project was to develop a CBTi that could be delivered by HCAs (non-specialist, relatively low-paid staff), after training in basic CBT skills 18…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Guidance for reporting intervention development studies in health research (GUIDED): an evidence-based consensus study

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ObjectiveTo improve the quality and consistency of intervention development reporting in health research.DesignThis was a consensus exercise consisting of two simultaneous and identical three-round e-Delphi studies (one with experts in intervention development and one with wider stakeholders including funders, journal editors and public involvement members), followed by a consensus workshop. Delphi items were systematically derived from two preceding systematic reviews and a qualitative interview study.ParticipantsIntervention developers (n=26) and wider stakeholders (n=18) from the UK, North America and Europe participated in separate e-Delphi studies. Intervention developers (n=13) and wider stakeholders (n=13) participated in a 1-day consensus workshop.Resultse-Delphi participants achieved consensus on 15 reporting items. Following feedback from the consensus meeting, the final inclusion and wording of 14 items with description and explanations for each item were agreed. Items focus on context, purpose, target population, approaches, evidence, theory, guiding principles, stakeholder contribution, changes in content or format during the development process, required changes for subgroups, continuing uncertainties, and open access publication. They form the GUIDED (GUIDance for the rEporting of intervention Development) checklist, which contains a description and explanation of each item, alongside examples of good reporting.ConclusionsConsensus-based reporting guidance for intervention development in health research is now available for publishers and researchers to use. GUIDED has the potential to lead to greater transparency, and enhance quality and improve learning about intervention development research and practice.

show abstract

“…On this basis, our research adds to previous research ndings, recognizing that fear of falling may be more important than previous falls in limiting the daily activities of older adults. Studies have shown that fear of falling can be alleviated by improving cognitive behavior and daily activities in older adults [34,35]. For older adults who have fear of falling, lifestyle changes are recommended to achieve effective intervention and reduce the incidence of falls [36].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Fear of Falling is More Important Than Previous Falls in Terms of Limiting Activities: A Longitudinal Study

Liu

Hou

et al. 2020

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Fear of falling and previous falls are both risk factors that affect daily activities of older adults. However, it remains unclear whether they independently limit daily activities accounting for each other. This study aims to examine whether previous falls and fear of falling independently predict limited daily activities among older adults.Methods: We used the data from Round 1 to Round 5 of the National Health and Aging Trends Study. We included a total of 866 community-dwelling participants who provided data on previous falls, fear of falling and limited activities from Round 1 to Round 5 and had no limited daily activities at Round 1 in this study. Previous falls and fear of falling were ascertained by asking participants whether they had fallen in the past year and whether they had worried about falling in the last month. Limited daily activities included any difficulties with mobility (e.g., going outside), self-care (e.g., eating), and household activities (e.g., laundering). Generalized estimation equation models were used to examine whether previous falls and fear of falling independently predicted development of limited daily activities adjusting covariates.Results: Participants were mainly between 65 and 79 years old (83%), male (57%), and non-Hispanic White (79%). Among participants who fell in Round 1, 13.2%-27.6%, 29.0%-52.0%, and 18.4%-32.9% developed limitations in mobility, self-care, household activities during Round 2 to Round 4, respectively. Among those who had fear of falling in Round 1, 22.5%-41.3%, 30.0%-55.0%, and 18.8%-36.3% developed limitations in mobility, self-care, and household activities during Round 2 to Round 4, respectively. Fear of falling independently predicted limitations in mobility (Incidence rate ratio [IRR]: 1.86, 95% CI: 1.50, 2.31), self-care (IRR: 1.32, 95% CI: 1.11, 1.62) and household activities (IRR: 1.34, 95% CI: 1.11, 1.62) after adjusting for previous falls and covariates. Previous falls only independently predicted limitations in mobility (IRR: 1.30, 1.08, 1.56) and household activities (IRR: 1.27, 95% CI: 1.05, 1.54) after adjusting fear of falling and covariates. Conclusions: While recognizing the risk factor of previous falls, fear of falling can be a more critical factor to intervene to reduce limited daily activities.

show abstract

Making sense of a cognitive behavioural therapy intervention for fear of falling: qualitative study of intervention development

Cited by 14 publications

References 28 publications

Using Normalization Process Theory in feasibility studies and process evaluations of complex healthcare interventions: a systematic review

Using Normalization Process Theory in feasibility studies and process evaluations of complex healthcare interventions: a systematic review

Guidance for reporting intervention development studies in health research (GUIDED): an evidence-based consensus study

Fear of Falling is More Important Than Previous Falls in Terms of Limiting Activities: A Longitudinal Study

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About