Clinician acceptability of the ReacStep reactive balance training program for fall prevention

• Published in: Physiotherapy research international : the journal for researchers and clinicians in physical therapy 2024-10, Vol.29 (4), p.e2133-n/a
• Main Authors: Ho, Chrissie, Sharma, Shivam, Huang, Tiffany, Cheung, Daniel, Hicks, Cameron, Treacy, Daniel, Farlie, Melanie K., Lam, Freddy M. H., Lord, Stephen R., Okubo, Yoshiro
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Subjects: acceptability; accidental falls; Accidental Falls - prevention & control; Adult; Aged; Attitude of Health Personnel; clinical/hospital settings; Exercise Therapy; Female; Humans; Male; Middle Aged; older adults; Physical Therapists - education; Physical Therapy Modalities; Postural Balance - physiology; reactive balance training; Self Efficacy; survey; Surveys and Questionnaires
• ISSN: 1358-2267; 1471-2865; 1471-2865
• DOI: 10.1002/pri.2133

Aim To examine if a novel reactive balance training program (ReacStep) designed for clinical settings is acceptable to clinicians prescribing balance and mobility training. Methods ReacStep consists of tether‐release reactive step training, volitional trip and slip training, and functional strength training. An open survey comprising 11‐point visual analog scale items (0 = strongly disagree to 10 = strongly agree) based on the Theoretical Framework of Acceptability was sent to clinicians working in balance and mobility training. Items evaluated the acceptability of ReacStep across seven domains (intervention coherence, perceived efficacy, self‐efficacy, ethicality, affective attitude, burden and opportunity cost). Results Two hundred and seven clinicians (169 Physiotherapists, 22 Exercise Physiologists, 11 Occupational Therapists and five others) completed the survey. Respondents considered ReacStep to have good overall acceptability, intervention coherence, effectiveness, ethicality and self‐efficacy (mean acceptability scores >7). However, respondent's ratings of ReacStep's affective attitude, burden and opportunity cost were more variable (mean acceptability scores 2–8) due to concerns about client anxiety, the need for a safety harness and staffing and training requirements. Respondents considered that ReacStep would be more effective and safer to conduct in geriatrics clients compared with neurological clients, and that it would be more appropriate for rehabilitation and private practice settings compared to home settings. Conclusions ReacStep was generally acceptable from the perspective of clinicians who prescribe balance and mobility training in various clinical settings, and was deemed more effective and safer for older clients without neurological conditions, and beneficial in outpatient rehabilitation and private practice settings.