Back

Eye care practitioners and falls prevention: protocol for a scoping review

Chen, J.; Alam, K.; Lee, S. Y.; Hill, A.-M.

2024-04-22 ophthalmology
10.1101/2024.04.22.24306149 medRxiv
Show abstract

IntroductionFalls are the leading cause of injury in older adults and can lead to substantial costs for the individual and society. Eye care practitioners in the community provide services for a large proportion of the older adult population and can play a key role in falls prevention, however it is unclear whether they are implementing evidence-based recommendations in practice. The aim of this scoping review is to map and synthesise the current evidence for community-based eye care practitioners translating falls prevention evidence into clinical practice. Methods and analysisThe study will use the framework by Arksey and OMalley and the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR). Studies that have been published in English from 1990 to current on the topic of eye care practitioners and falls prevention in older adults will be searched on MEDLINE, Embase, and CINAHLPlus databases. Grey literature will be searched using Web of Science and OpenMD. The titles and abstracts of results will be screened against the inclusion criteria and full texts will be analysed. Data from final included articles will be extracted by two independent reviewers using a tool created according to the Joanna Briggs Institute guidelines. The World Falls Guidelines will be used as a framework for data mapping. Results will be charted, collated, and summarised narratively. Ethics and disseminationIt is anticipated that the results from this scoping review will highlight any gaps in the literature regarding eye care practitioner awareness and implementation of falls prevention guidelines and inform future research and clinical recommendations. Ethics approval is not required. Findings will be submitted to a peer-reviewed journal for publication.

Matching journals

The top 1 journal accounts for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

50% of probability mass above

"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.