Tracy A Comans1, Sandy G Brauer, Terry P Haines. 1. School of Medicine, Griffith University, University Drive, Meadowbrook, Queensland 4131, Australia. t.comans@griffith.edu.au
Abstract
BACKGROUND: To compare the effect of two modes of delivering a falls prevention service in reducing the rate of falls and improving quality of life, activity levels, and physical status among older adults with a history of recent falls. METHODS: A randomized controlled trial was conducted with a total of 107 participants with blinded baseline and follow-up assessments. The participants were older community-dwelling adults referred for a falls prevention service located in Brisbane, Australia. The intervention was a multiple component falls prevention service delivered in either in a domiciliary or center-based mode of delivery. Both programs were similar apart from setting and consisted of three components, a balance and strength component, falls prevention education, and functional tasks. Physical and psychosocial assessments were administered at baseline, 8-week follow-up and 6-month follow-up. Falls data were collected by monthly telephone contact and by interview at 8 weeks and 6 months. RESULTS: The center-based service demonstrated significantly better results in preventing falls over the home-based service. Clients in the center-based arm of the trial experienced fewer total falls and this group also had a greater reduction in the total number of fallers after the intervention. CONCLUSION: This research demonstrates that delivering a similar service in different settings-home based or center based-impacts upon the effectiveness of the service. Community-dwelling older adults with a history of falls should be provided with center-based programs in preference to home-based programs where they are available.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND: To compare the effect of two modes of delivering a falls prevention service in reducing the rate of falls and improving quality of life, activity levels, and physical status among older adults with a history of recent falls. METHODS: A randomized controlled trial was conducted with a total of 107 participants with blinded baseline and follow-up assessments. The participants were older community-dwelling adults referred for a falls prevention service located in Brisbane, Australia. The intervention was a multiple component falls prevention service delivered in either in a domiciliary or center-based mode of delivery. Both programs were similar apart from setting and consisted of three components, a balance and strength component, falls prevention education, and functional tasks. Physical and psychosocial assessments were administered at baseline, 8-week follow-up and 6-month follow-up. Falls data were collected by monthly telephone contact and by interview at 8 weeks and 6 months. RESULTS: The center-based service demonstrated significantly better results in preventing falls over the home-based service. Clients in the center-based arm of the trial experienced fewer total falls and this group also had a greater reduction in the total number of fallers after the intervention. CONCLUSION: This research demonstrates that delivering a similar service in different settings-home based or center based-impacts upon the effectiveness of the service. Community-dwelling older adults with a history of falls should be provided with center-based programs in preference to home-based programs where they are available.
Authors: Cecilie Røe; Erik Bautz-Holter; Nada Andelic; Helene Lundgaard Søberg; Boya Nugraha; Christoph Gutenbrunner; Andrea Boekel; Marit Kirkevold; Grace Engen; Juan Lu Journal: Arch Rehabil Res Clin Transl Date: 2022-04-13
Authors: Lesley D Gillespie; M Clare Robertson; William J Gillespie; Catherine Sherrington; Simon Gates; Lindy M Clemson; Sarah E Lamb Journal: Cochrane Database Syst Rev Date: 2012-09-12
Authors: Meg E Morris; Clarissa Martin; Jennifer L McGinley; Frances E Huxham; Hylton B Menz; Nicholas F Taylor; Mary Danoudis; Jennifer J Watts; Sze-Ee Soh; Andrew H Evans; Malcolm Horne; Peter Kempster Journal: BMC Neurol Date: 2012-07-16 Impact factor: 2.474
Authors: Evan Mayo-Wilson; Sean Grant; Jennifer Burton; Amanda Parsons; Kristen Underhill; Paul Montgomery Journal: PLoS One Date: 2014-03-12 Impact factor: 3.240