Diverse Community-Based Falls Prevention Assignment
Order ID 53563633773 Type Essay Writer Level Masters Style APA Sources/References 4 Perfect Number of Pages to Order 5-10 Pages Description/Paper Instructions
Diverse Community-Based Falls Prevention Assignment
randomized controlled trial (RCT) findings that diverse community-based falls prevention interventions signify- cantily reduce the number of falls and fallers [9, 10]. In England and Wales, the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) clinical guideline 161 (CG161) is the normative reference point for local clin- ical practice [2].
This recommends that persons aged 65+ receive falls risk screening at routine visits to health and social care professionals; those screened to be at high risk would then be referred to multidisciplinary falls risk assessment and tailored treatments, including exercise, home assessment and modification (HAM), medication modification and vision improvements]
[2]. These treatments may also be delivered individually as single- component interventions [11–13], either as substitutes for the multifactorial intervention or as non-mutually exclusive complements [14, 15]. These interactions be- tween screening and treatment components, the multi- factorial risk profile of falls as a geriatric syndrome [16], and the wider environmental risk factors [17, 18] intro- duce substantial complexity to falls prevention [19, 20].
Due to this complexity, community-based falls preven-tion strategies face significant implementation challenges [21–24]. For example, a recent survey of English GPs found that only 31% routinely screened their older pa- tients for falls history; the median annual number of re- ferrals to falls prevention services per GP was just 10 [25].
Implementation quality can be suboptimal even in RCT settings. For example, the uptake rate for a UK trial of falls prevention exercise was 6% [26]; adherence to different components of multifactorial interventions is as low as 28% [27]; and 16% of participants withdraw from falls prevention exercise at trial conclusion [28]. Low im- plementation reduces the effectiveness and population
reach/impact of falls prevention [20]. Accordingly, NICE CG161 incorporated a systematic synthesis of older peo- ple’s views on the facilitators and barriers to falls preven- tion (covering the period 1990–2003), but found no study that explored their views on multifactorial pack- ages (p. 101) [2]. More recent qualitative works have likewise focused on specific components of the falls pre- vention pathway, including receptiveness to falls preven- tion advice [29], falls risk assessment [30], and exercise uptake [31, 32] and adherence [33].
This is an important evidence gap given that complexity results from the interaction of facilitators and barriers across different pathway components. A more holistic approach to quali- tative research with current or potential falls prevention service users is warranted. Health economic evaluation is a comparative analysis
of alternative healthcare strategies in terms of costs and consequences with the purpose of informing the efficient use of scarce resources under a constrained healthcare budget [34]; it can also incorporate further decisional criteria beyond cost-effectiveness, such as reduction in social inequities of health, according to stakeholder pref- erence [35–37]. One vehicle for economic evaluation is decision modelling that represents the key causal mecha- nisms of a decision problem in mathematical and statis- tical/probabilistic relationships [34].
Decision models are particularly well-suited for considering all relevant costs and effects of interventions over long time horizons, and for evaluating ‘what-if’ scenarios for the full target popu- lation of the decision-making jurisdiction [38]. One such scenario is the commissioning of implementation re- sources to change current local practice into a form ap- proaching the NICE-recommended pathway. A de novo economic model is likely required if the
existing economic models or evidence are insufficient for informing local decision-making: e.g., due to unreal- istic representation of local practice and/or shortcom- ings in characterising the key causal mechanisms. Currently, the decision model developed to inform CG161 [39] evaluates a multifactorial intervention for the national population and may not be locally generalis- able; while the locally applicable Public Health England Return on Investment tool [11] only evaluates single- component interventions. This presents a rationale for developing a de novo model evaluating the cost-
Kwon et al. BMC Health Services Research (2021) 21:1020 Page 2 of 19
effectiveness relative to current practice (and wider deci- sional outcomes) of a strategy that locally implements the NICE-recommended pathway. Qualitative research with current and potential con-
RUBRIC
QUALITY OF RESPONSE NO RESPONSE POOR / UNSATISFACTORY SATISFACTORY GOOD EXCELLENT Content (worth a maximum of 50% of the total points) Zero points: Student failed to submit the final paper. 20 points out of 50: The essay illustrates poor understanding of the relevant material by failing to address or incorrectly addressing the relevant content; failing to identify or inaccurately explaining/defining key concepts/ideas; ignoring or incorrectly explaining key points/claims and the reasoning behind them; and/or incorrectly or inappropriately using terminology; and elements of the response are lacking. 30 points out of 50: The essay illustrates a rudimentary understanding of the relevant material by mentioning but not full explaining the relevant content; identifying some of the key concepts/ideas though failing to fully or accurately explain many of them; using terminology, though sometimes inaccurately or inappropriately; and/or incorporating some key claims/points but failing to explain the reasoning behind them or doing so inaccurately. Elements of the required response may also be lacking. 40 points out of 50: The essay illustrates solid understanding of the relevant material by correctly addressing most of the relevant content; identifying and explaining most of the key concepts/ideas; using correct terminology; explaining the reasoning behind most of the key points/claims; and/or where necessary or useful, substantiating some points with accurate examples. The answer is complete. 50 points: The essay illustrates exemplary understanding of the relevant material by thoroughly and correctly addressing the relevant content; identifying and explaining all of the key concepts/ideas; using correct terminology explaining the reasoning behind key points/claims and substantiating, as necessary/useful, points with several accurate and illuminating examples. No aspects of the required answer are missing. Use of Sources (worth a maximum of 20% of the total points). Zero points: Student failed to include citations and/or references. Or the student failed to submit a final paper. 5 out 20 points: Sources are seldom cited to support statements and/or format of citations are not recognizable as APA 6th Edition format. There are major errors in the formation of the references and citations. And/or there is a major reliance on highly questionable. The Student fails to provide an adequate synthesis of research collected for the paper. 10 out 20 points: References to scholarly sources are occasionally given; many statements seem unsubstantiated. Frequent errors in APA 6th Edition format, leaving the reader confused about the source of the information. There are significant errors of the formation in the references and citations. And/or there is a significant use of highly questionable sources. 15 out 20 points: Credible Scholarly sources are used effectively support claims and are, for the most part, clear and fairly represented. APA 6th Edition is used with only a few minor errors. There are minor errors in reference and/or citations. And/or there is some use of questionable sources. 20 points: Credible scholarly sources are used to give compelling evidence to support claims and are clearly and fairly represented. APA 6th Edition format is used accurately and consistently. The student uses above the maximum required references in the development of the assignment. Grammar (worth maximum of 20% of total points) Zero points: Student failed to submit the final paper. 5 points out of 20: The paper does not communicate ideas/points clearly due to inappropriate use of terminology and vague language; thoughts and sentences are disjointed or incomprehensible; organization lacking; and/or numerous grammatical, spelling/punctuation errors 10 points out 20: The paper is often unclear and difficult to follow due to some inappropriate terminology and/or vague language; ideas may be fragmented, wandering and/or repetitive; poor organization; and/or some grammatical, spelling, punctuation errors 15 points out of 20: The paper is mostly clear as a result of appropriate use of terminology and minimal vagueness; no tangents and no repetition; fairly good organization; almost perfect grammar, spelling, punctuation, and word usage. 20 points: The paper is clear, concise, and a pleasure to read as a result of appropriate and precise use of terminology; total coherence of thoughts and presentation and logical organization; and the essay is error free. Structure of the Paper (worth 10% of total points) Zero points: Student failed to submit the final paper. 3 points out of 10: Student needs to develop better formatting skills. The paper omits significant structural elements required for and APA 6th edition paper. Formatting of the paper has major flaws. The paper does not conform to APA 6th edition requirements whatsoever. 5 points out of 10: Appearance of final paper demonstrates the student’s limited ability to format the paper. There are significant errors in formatting and/or the total omission of major components of an APA 6th edition paper. They can include the omission of the cover page, abstract, and page numbers. Additionally the page has major formatting issues with spacing or paragraph formation. Font size might not conform to size requirements. The student also significantly writes too large or too short of and paper 7 points out of 10: Research paper presents an above-average use of formatting skills. The paper has slight errors within the paper. This can include small errors or omissions with the cover page, abstract, page number, and headers. There could be also slight formatting issues with the document spacing or the font Additionally the paper might slightly exceed or undershoot the specific number of required written pages for the assignment. 10 points: Student provides a high-caliber, formatted paper. This includes an APA 6th edition cover page, abstract, page number, headers and is double spaced in 12’ Times Roman Font. Additionally, the paper conforms to the specific number of required written pages and neither goes over or under the specified length of the paper. GET THIS PROJECT NOW BY CLICKING ON THIS LINK TO PLACE THE ORDER
CLICK ON THE LINK HERE: https://www.perfectacademic.com/orders/ordernow
Also, you can place the order at www.collegepaper.us/orders/ordernow / www.phdwriters.us/orders/ordernow
Do You Have Any Other Essay/Assignment/Class Project/Homework Related to this? Click Here Now [CLICK ME]and Have It Done by Our PhD Qualified Writers!!