Orientation and mobility outcome measures

Despite orientation and mobility (O&M) being a significant factor determining quality of life of people with low vision or blindness, there are no gold standard measures or agreement on how to measure O&M performance. In the first part of this systematic review, an inventory of O&M outcome measures used by recent studies to assess the performance of orientation and/or mobility of adults with vision impairment (low vision and blindness) is presented. A wide variety of O&M outcome measures have been implemented in different fields of study, such as epidemiologic research and interventional studies evaluating training, assistive technology, vision rehabilitation and vision restoration. The most frequent aspect of outcome measures is efficiency such as time, distance, speed and percentage of preferred walking speed, followed by obstacle contacts and avoidance, and dis/orientation and veering. Other less commonly used aspects are target identification, safety and social interaction and self-reported outcome measures. Some studies employ sophisticated equipment to capture and analyse O&M performance in a laboratory setting, while others carry out their assessment in real-world indoor or outdoor environments. In the second part of this review, the appropriateness of implementing the identified outcome measures to assess O&M performance in clinical and functional O&M practice is evaluated. Nearly a half of these outcome measures meet all four criteria of face validity (either clinical or functional), responsiveness, reliability and feasibility and have the potential to be implemented in clinical or functional O&M practice. The findings of this review confirm the complicated and dynamic nature of O&M. Multiple measures are required in any evaluation of O&M performance to facilitate holistic assessment of O&M abilities and limitations of each individual.     

Multidisciplinary diabetes team care: the experiences of young adults with Type 1 diabetes

Background

This research examined whether young adults with Type 1 diabetes engage with the multidisciplinary consultation process and if not, then why.

Methods

We designed a web‐based self‐reported survey, available online from February to May 2011, for Australian adults 18–35 years with Type 1 diabetes. Respondents were asked about which clinicians they consulted to assist with self‐management. To expand on the results of the survey, we interviewed 33 respondents.

Results

Survey: Respondents (n = 150) consulted with the following clinicians: endocrinologist and diabetes educators: 23.3%; endocrinologist only: 18.0%; endocrinologist, diabetes educators and dieticians: 14.6%; endocrinologist, diabetes educators, dietician and general practitioners (GP): 11.3%; endocrinologist and GP: 10.6%; GP only: 4.6%; all clinicians recommended to assist with self‐management: 1.3%; 2.7% did not consult any clinician. Interview: Participants (n = 33) reported eight key disincentives to consultation with multidisciplinary clinicians. These were time constraints; provision of conflicting advice; inaccessibility of health services; variation in service standards; cost constraints; failure of clinicians to refer to other clinicians; lack of opportunity to build a therapeutic relationship; and failure of clinicians to engage in shared decision making.

Conclusion

Our results indicate that high attrition rates of young adults with Type 1 diabetes from recommended diabetes health services is linked to the failure of those services to meet the needs and preferences of their patients. The identified needs and preferences included joint consultation with multi‐disciplinary team clinicians; flexible access to advice by email or telephone consultation; and shared decision making. Patient engagement in health‐service re‐design has implications for improved health‐service delivery and enhanced treatment outcomes.     

Salt Intakes,Knowledge, and Behavior in Samoa: Monitoring Salt‐Consumption Patterns Through the World Health Organization's Surveillance of Noncommunicable Disease Risk Factors (STEPS)

This project measured population salt intake in Samoa by integrating urinary sodium analysis into the World Health Organization's (WHO's) STEPwise approach to surveillance of noncommunicable disease risk factors (STEPS). A subsample of the Samoan Ministry of Health's 2013 STEPS Survey collected 24‐hour and spot urine samples and completed questions on salt‐related behaviors. Complete urine samples were available for 293 participants. Overall, weighted mean population 24‐hour urine excretion of salt was 7.09 g (standard error 0.19) to 7.63 g (standard error 0.27) for men and 6.39 g (standard error 0.14) for women (P=.0014). Salt intake increased with body mass index (P=.0004), and people who added salt at the table had 1.5 g higher salt intakes than those who did not add salt (P=.0422). A total of 70% of the population had urinary excretion values above the 5 g/d cutoff recommended by the WHO. A reduction of 30% (2 g) would reduce average population salt intake to 5 g/d, in line with WHO recommendations. While challenging, integration of salt monitoring into STEPS provides clear logistical and cost benefits and the lessons communicated here can help inform future programs.