Accessible design features and home modifications to improve physical housing accessibility: A mixed-methods survey of occupational therapists

Environmental Modifications for People With Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities: A Policy Analysis of Medicaid Home- and Community-Based Services

IMPORTANCE

Environmental modifications are targets for occupational therapy intervention because they support activities of daily living, self-efficacy, personal control, independence, and community living for people with intellectual and developmental disabilities (IDDs).

OBJECTIVE

To examine how environmental modifications were provided to people with IDDs through Medicaid home- and community-based services (HCBS) waivers across the United States in fiscal year (FY) 2021.

DESIGN

Using a mixed-methods policy analysis, we examined FY 2021 Medicaid HCBS 1915(c) waivers from across the United States to examine whether, and how, states provided environmental modifications to people with IDDs.

RESULTS

In FY 2021, 35 states projected spending $68.8 million on environmental modifications for 12,671 people with IDDs. The purpose of environmental modifications was most often to promote the health, welfare, and safety of people with IDDs (82.68%), and to promote their independence (69.29%). The most common examples of environmental modifications included ramps and/or lifts (70.08%), widening doorways and/or hallways (61.42%), bathroom modifications (58.27%), specialized electrical and/or plumbing for medical equipment (54.33%), and grab bars and/or handrails (53.54%).

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

HCBS waiver data on environmental modifications for people with IDDs enhances an understanding of this funding source and provides a foundation of advocacy for occupational therapy practitioners to support people with IDDs with living, as well as aging, in the community rather than in institutions. An expansion of environmental modifications in HCBS for people with IDDs aligns with the aim of Medicaid HCBS waivers to promote community integration, self-determination, and independence, which are all benefits of environmental modifications. Plain-Language Summary: This study can help occupational therapy practitioners determine what funding sources are available in their state to help their clients with intellectual and developmental disabilities access environmental modifications. The findings can also help guide advocacy and lobbying efforts to expand access to environmental modifications.

A Digital Tool for the Self-Assessment of Homes to Increase Age-Friendliness: Validity Study

BACKGROUND

Age-friendly environments in homes and communities play an important role in optimizing the health and well-being of society. Older people have strong preferences for remaining at home as they age. Home environment assessment tools that enable older people to assess their homes and prepare for aging in place may be beneficial.

OBJECTIVE

This study aims to establish the validity of a digital self-assessment tool by assessing it against the current gold standard, an occupational therapy home assessment.

METHODS

A cohort of adults aged ≥60 years living in metropolitan Adelaide, South Australia, Australia, assessed their homes using a digital self-assessment tool with 89 questions simultaneously with an occupational therapist. Adults who were living within their homes and did not have significant levels of disabilities were recruited. Cohen κ and Gwet AC1 were used to assess validity.

RESULTS

A total of 61 participants (age: mean 71.2, SD 7.03 years) self-assessed their own homes using the digital self-assessment tool. The overall levels of agreement were high, supporting the validity of the tool in identifying potential hazards. Lower levels of agreement were found in the following domains: steps (77% agreement, Gwet AC1=0.56), toilets (56% agreement, κ=0.10), bathrooms (64% agreement, κ=0.46), and backyards (55% agreement, κ=0.24).

CONCLUSIONS

Older people were able to self-assess their homes using a digital self-assessment tool. Digital health tools enable older people to start thinking about their future housing needs. Innovative tools that can identify problems and generate solutions may improve the age-friendliness of the home environment.

Environmental interventions for preventing falls in older people living in the community

BACKGROUND

Falls and fall-related injuries are common. A third of community-dwelling people aged over 65 years fall each year. Falls can have serious consequences including restricting activity or institutionalisation. This review updates the previous evidence for environmental interventions in fall prevention.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects (benefits and harms) of environmental interventions (such as fall-hazard reduction, assistive technology, home modifications, and education) for preventing falls in older people living in the community.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, other databases, trial registers, and reference lists of systematic reviews to January 2021. We contacted researchers in the field to identify additional studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials evaluating the effects of environmental interventions (such as reduction of fall hazards in the home, assistive devices) on falls in community-residing people aged 60 years and over.   DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. Our primary outcome was rate of falls.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 22 studies from 10 countries involving 8463 community-residing older people. Participants were on average 78 years old, and 65% were women. For fall outcomes, five studies had high risk of bias and most studies had unclear risk of bias for one or more risk of bias domains. For other outcomes (e.g. fractures), most studies were at high risk of detection bias. We downgraded the certainty of the evidence for high risk of bias, imprecision, and/or inconsistency.  Home fall-hazard reduction (14 studies, 5830 participants) These interventions aim to reduce falls by assessing fall hazards and making environmental safety adaptations (e.g. non-slip strips on steps) or behavioural strategies (e.g. avoiding clutter).  Home fall-hazard interventions probably reduce the overall rate of falls by 26% (rate ratio (RaR) 0.74, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.61 to 0.91; 12 studies, 5293 participants; moderate-certainty evidence); based on a control group risk of 1319 falls per 1000 people a year, this is 343 (95% CI 118 to 514) fewer falls. However, these interventions were more effective in people who are selected for higher risk of falling, with a reduction of 38% (RaR 0.62, 95% CI 0.56 to 0.70; 9 studies, 1513 participants; 702 (95% CI 554 to 812) fewer falls based on a control risk of 1847 falls per 1000 people; high-certainty evidence). We found no evidence of a reduction in rate of falls when people were not selected for fall risk (RaR 1.05, 95% CI 0.96 to 1.16; 6 studies, 3780 participants; high-certainty evidence). Findings were similar for the number of people experiencing one or more falls. These interventions probably reduce the overall risk by 11% (risk ratio (RR) 0.89, 95% CI 0.82 to 0.97; 12 studies, 5253 participants; moderate-certainty evidence); based on a risk of 519 per 1000 people per year, this is 57 (95% CI 15 to 93) fewer fallers. However, for people at higher risk of falling, we found a 26% decrease in risk (RR 0.74, 95% CI 0.65 to 0.85; 9 studies, 1473 participants), but no decrease for unselected populations (RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.92 to 1.07; 6 studies, 3780 participants) (high-certainty evidence). These interventions probably make little or no important difference to health-related quality of life (HRQoL) (standardised mean difference 0.09, 95% CI -0.10 to 0.27; 5 studies, 1848 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). They may make little or no difference to the risk of fall-related fractures (RR 1.00, 95% 0.98 to 1.02; 2 studies, 1668 participants), fall-related hospitalisations (RR 0.96, 95% CI 0.87 to 1.06; 3 studies, 325 participants), or in the rate of falls requiring medical attention (RaR 0.91, 95% CI 0.58 to 1.43; 3 studies, 946 participants) (low-certainty evidence). The evidence for number of fallers requiring medical attention was unclear (2 studies, 216 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Two studies reported no adverse events. Assistive technology Vision improvement interventions may make little or no difference to the rate of falls (RaR 1.12, 95% CI 0.84 to 1.50; 3 studies, 1489 participants) or people experiencing one or more falls (RR 1.09, 95% CI 0.79 to 1.50) (low-certainty evidence). We are unsure of the evidence for fall-related fractures (2 studies, 976 participants) and falls requiring medical attention (1 study, 276 participants) because the certainty of the evidence is very low. There may be little or no difference in HRQoL (mean difference 0.40, 95% CI -1.12 to 1.92) or adverse events (falls while switching glasses; RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.98 to 1.02) (1 study, 597 participants; low-certainty evidence). Results for other assistive technology - footwear and foot devices, and self-care and assistive devices (5 studies, 651 participants) - were not pooled due to the diversity of interventions and contexts.  Education  We are uncertain whether an education intervention to reduce home fall hazards reduces the rate of falls or the number of people experiencing one or more falls (1 study; very low-certainty evidence). These interventions may make little or no difference to the risk of fall-related fractures (RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.96 to 1.08; 1 study, 110 participants; low-certainty evidence).  Home modifications We found no trials of home modifications that measured falls as an outcome for task enablement and functional independence.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We found high-certainty evidence that home fall-hazard interventions are effective in reducing the rate of falls and the number of fallers when targeted to people at higher risk of falling, such as having had a fall in the past year and recently hospitalised or needing support with daily activities. There was evidence of no effect when interventions were targeted to people not selected for risk of falling. Further research is needed to examine the impact of intervention components, the effect of awareness raising, and participant-interventionist engagement on decision-making and adherence.  Vision improvement interventions may or may not impact the rate of falls. Further research is needed to answer clinical questions such as whether people should be given advice or take additional precautions when changing eye prescriptions, or whether the intervention is more effective when targeting people at higher risk of falls. There was insufficient evidence to determine whether education interventions impact falls.