Project description:Our study objective was to determine the effect of vision intervention and combinations of different intervention components on preventing falls and fall-related injuries among older people. Six electronic databases were searched to identify seven articles published before May, 2014. We conducted a systematic review of data from seven randomized controlled trails and identified eight regimens: vision intervention alone (V), vision plus exercise (referred to as physical exercise) interventions (V?+?E), vision plus home hazard interventions (V?+?HH), vision plus exercise plus home hazard interventions (V?+?E?+?HH), vision plus exercise plus sensation interventions (V?+?E?+?S), vision plus hearing interventions (V?+?H), vision plus various risk factor assessment and interventions (V?+?VRF), and the control group (C, no intervention group). The main outcome was the incidence of falls during the follow-up period. Seven papers included 2723 participants. Network meta-analysis of seven trials, using pairwise comparisons between each intervention, indicated there was no significant difference. However, there was a trend in which intervention incorporating V?+?VRF had more advantages than any other combination of interventions. In conclusion, V?+?VRF proves to be more effective than other V combination interventions in preventing falls in older people (?65 years of age). V alone appears less effective in our network meta-analysis.
Project description:Limited attention has been paid in the literature to multiple component fall prevention interventions that comprise two or more fixed combinations of fall prevention interventions that are not individually tailored following a risk assessment. The study objective was to determine the effect of multiple component interventions on fall rates, number of fallers and fall-related injuries among older people and to establish effect sizes of particular intervention combinations.Medline, EMBASE, CINAHL, PsychInfo, Cochrane, AMED, UK Clinical Research Network Study Portfolio, Current Controlled Trials register and Australian and New Zealand Clinical Trials register were systematically searched to August 2013 for randomised controlled trials targeting those aged 60 years and older with any medical condition or in any setting that compared multiple component interventions with no intervention, placebo or usual clinical care on the outcomes reported falls, number that fall or fall-related injuries. Included studies were appraised using the Cochrane risk of bias tool. Estimates of fall rate ratio and risk ratio were pooled across studies using random effects meta-analysis. Data synthesis took place in 2013.Eighteen papers reporting 17 trials were included (5034 participants). There was a reduction in the number of people that fell (pooled risk ratio = 0.85, 95% confidence interval (95% CI) 0.80 to 0.91) and the fall rate (pooled rate ratio = 0.80, 95% CI 0.72 to 0.89) in favour of multiple component interventions when compared with controls. There was a small amount of statistical heterogeneity (I(2) =20%) across studies for fall rate and no heterogeneity across studies examining number of people that fell.This systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials found evidence that multiple component interventions that are not tailored to individually assessed risk factors are effective at reducing both the number of people that fall and the fall rate. This approach should be considered as a service delivery option.
Project description:BackgroundThe Ambient Intelligent Geriatric Management (AmbIGeM) system augments best practice and involves a novel wearable sensor (accelerometer and gyroscope) worn by patients where the data captured by the sensor are interpreted by algorithms to trigger alerts on clinician handheld mobile devices when risk movements are detected.MethodsA 3-cluster stepped-wedge pragmatic trial investigating the effect on the primary outcome of falls rate and secondary outcome of injurious fall and proportion of fallers. Three wards across 2 states were included. Patients aged ≥65 years were eligible. Patients requiring palliative care were excluded. The trial was registered with the Australia and New Zealand Clinical Trials registry, number 12617000981325.ResultsA total of 4924 older patients were admitted to the study wards with 1076 excluded and 3240 (1995 control, 1245 intervention) enrolled. The median proportion of study duration with valid readings per patient was 49% ((interquartile range [IQR] 25%-67%)). There was no significant difference between intervention and control relating to the falls rate (adjusted rate ratio = 1.41, 95% confidence interval [0.85, 2.34]; p = .192), proportion of fallers (odds ratio = 1.54, 95% confidence interval [0.91, 2.61]; p = .105), and injurious falls rate (adjusted rate ratio = 0.90, 95% confidence interval [0.38, 2.14]; p = .807). In a post hoc analysis, falls and injurious falls rate were reduced in the Geriatric Evaluation and Management Unit wards when the intervention period was compared to the control period.ConclusionsThe AmbIGeM system did not reduce the rate of falls, rate of injurious falls, or proportion of fallers. There remains a case for further exploration and refinement of this technology given the post hoc analysis findings with the Geriatric Evaluation and Management Unit wards. Clinical Trials Registration Number: 12617000981325.
Project description:ImportanceFalls result in substantial burden for patients and health care systems, and given the aging of the population worldwide, the incidence of falls continues to rise.ObjectiveTo assess the potential effectiveness of interventions for preventing falls.Data sourcesMEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and Ageline databases from inception until April 2017. Reference lists of included studies were scanned.Study selectionRandomized clinical trials (RCTs) of fall-prevention interventions for participants aged 65 years and older.Data extraction and synthesisPairs of reviewers independently screened the studies, abstracted data, and appraised risk of bias. Pairwise meta-analysis and network meta-analysis were conducted.Main outcomes and measuresInjurious falls and fall-related hospitalizations.ResultsA total of 283 RCTs (159 910 participants; mean age, 78.1 years; 74% women) were included after screening of 10 650 titles and abstracts and 1210 full-text articles. Network meta-analysis (including 54 RCTs, 41 596 participants, 39 interventions plus usual care) suggested that the following interventions, when compared with usual care, were associated with reductions in injurious falls: exercise (odds ratio [OR], 0.51 [95% CI, 0.33 to 0.79]; absolute risk difference [ARD], -0.67 [95% CI, -1.10 to -0.24]); combined exercise and vision assessment and treatment (OR, 0.17 [95% CI, 0.07 to 0.38]; ARD, -1.79 [95% CI, -2.63 to -0.96]); combined exercise, vision assessment and treatment, and environmental assessment and modification (OR, 0.30 [95% CI, 0.13 to 0.70]; ARD, -1.19 [95% CI, -2.04 to -0.35]); and combined clinic-level quality improvement strategies (eg, case management), multifactorial assessment and treatment (eg, comprehensive geriatric assessment), calcium supplementation, and vitamin D supplementation (OR, 0.12 [95% CI, 0.03 to 0.55]; ARD, -2.08 [95% CI, -3.56 to -0.60]). Pairwise meta-analyses for fall-related hospitalizations (2 RCTs; 516 participants) showed no significant association between combined clinic- and patient-level quality improvement strategies and multifactorial assessment and treatment relative to usual care (OR, 0.78 [95% CI, 0.33 to 1.81]).Conclusions and relevanceExercise alone and various combinations of interventions were associated with lower risk of injurious falls compared with usual care. Choice of fall-prevention intervention may depend on patient and caregiver values and preferences.
Project description:IntroductionPoor oral health among older people is a global problem impacting on health and well-being. The economic cost to the health system is significant. An ageing population is intensifying the urgency for action. However, poor oral health, particularly for those in residential aged care facilities, continues to be highly resistant to resolution. The overall aims of this realist review are to: (A) explore and synthesise evidence on oral health interventions for older people in residential aged care facilities, (B) produce a causal theory on how contextual factors and mechanisms interact to produce outcomes, and (C) produce guidelines/policies to inform high-quality oral health interventions to improve older people's oral health in residential aged care facilities.Methods and analysisThe review is guided by the RAMESES publication standards for realist synthesis. Participants include older people in residential aged care facilities, the aged care workforce, carers and families. Interventions include oral healthcare, oral health education, policy interventions and oral health promotion. The five-step realist review process of Pawson et al will guide the review: clarification of scope and development of initial framework, systematic searches, study appraisal and data extraction, synthesising evidence, drawing conclusions, and dissemination, implementation and evaluation. Expert input with key stakeholders will occur through a blog. Stakeholders will examine consistencies across studies and an explanatory causal theory will be developed to guide policy and practice.Ethics and disseminationFormal ethical approval was granted by the La Trobe University Ethics Committee HREC 20144. The developed theory will guide education, practice and policy decisions about interventions and the factors that impact on implementation. Using an integrated knowledge translation approach, traditional research outputs such as international conference presentations and publications will be supplemented with stakeholder forums, infographics, blogs, social media postings, webinars, podcasts and writing for web-based independent outlets.Prospero registration numberCRD42021155658.