Rethinking individual and community fall prevention strategies: a meta-regression comparing single and multifactorial interventions
Background guidelines recommend that fall prevention programmes for older people include multifactorial interventions. Objective we aimed to determine if randomised controlled trial evidence supports interventions with multiple components over single strategies in community based fall prevention. Me...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | Age and ageing 2007-11, Vol.36 (6), p.656-662 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
container_end_page | 662 |
---|---|
container_issue | 6 |
container_start_page | 656 |
container_title | Age and ageing |
container_volume | 36 |
creator | Campbell, A. John Robertson, M. Clare |
description | Background guidelines recommend that fall prevention programmes for older people include multifactorial interventions. Objective we aimed to determine if randomised controlled trial evidence supports interventions with multiple components over single strategies in community based fall prevention. Methods we searched the literature for trials of interventions aimed at preventing falls. We included trials if they met the following criteria: (i) participants were randomly allocated to intervention and control groups, (ii) all participants were aged 65 years or older, (iii) the majority lived independently in the community, (iv) fall events were recorded prospectively using a diary or calendar during the entire trial and monitored at least monthly, (v) follow up was for 12 months or longer, (vi) at least 70% of participants completed the trial, (vii) all falls during the trial for at least 50 participants were included in the analysis, and (viii) a relative rate ratio with 95% CI comparing the number of falls in the intervention and control groups was reported. We calculated a pooled rate ratio separately for trials testing multifactorial and single interventions and compared their overall efficacy using meta-regression. Results meta-regression showed that single interventions were as effective in reducing falls as interventions with multiple components (pooled rate ratios 0.77, 95% CI 0.67–0.89 and 0.78, 0.68–0.89 respectively). Conclusion multifactorial fall prevention interventions are effective for individual patients. However, for community programmes for populations at risk, targeted single interventions are as effective as multifactorial interventions, may be more acceptable and cost effective. |
doi_str_mv | 10.1093/ageing/afm122 |
format | Article |
fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_69015756</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><oup_id>10.1093/ageing/afm122</oup_id><sourcerecordid>69015756</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c525t-706c95768fee9030d32655461799614cc35199bae64745e8d9c7ffe93e3eb4d83</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqFkc9rFDEYhoModq0evcrgQbyMzY9JMvEmi7aFFqWsULyEbOabNe1MZppkij37jzfbGRR66SUh5Mnz8uVF6C3BnwhW7MjswPndkWl7QukztCKVqEtas-o5WmGMaYklVQfoVYxX-Ug4oS_RAakxF5KRFfp7Aem389fZUTjfuFvXTKYrjG8KO_T95F26K1rTdcUY4BZ8coMvYgomwc5B_FyYoodkygC7ADHub_O70YS9MOalgwdZP3XJtcamIbjsdz5BWHTxNXqREyK8WfZD9PPb1836pDz7fny6_nJWWk55KiUWVnEp6hZAYYYbRgXnlSBSKUEqaxknSm0NiEpWHOpGWdm2oBgw2FZNzQ7Rh9k7huFmgph076KFrjMehilqofL_SC6eBLmknEnOM_j-EXg1TMHnITQlFck18H1sOUM2DDEGaPUYXG_CnSZY7zvUc4d67jDz7xbptO2h-U8vpWXg4wwM0_ika8l2McGff7AJ1zqrJNcnl7_0j835-nJzgbVi99BJuPw</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>214128358</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Rethinking individual and community fall prevention strategies: a meta-regression comparing single and multifactorial interventions</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>Applied Social Sciences Index & Abstracts (ASSIA)</source><source>Oxford University Press Journals All Titles (1996-Current)</source><source>EZB-FREE-00999 freely available EZB journals</source><creator>Campbell, A. John ; Robertson, M. Clare</creator><creatorcontrib>Campbell, A. John ; Robertson, M. Clare</creatorcontrib><description>Background guidelines recommend that fall prevention programmes for older people include multifactorial interventions. Objective we aimed to determine if randomised controlled trial evidence supports interventions with multiple components over single strategies in community based fall prevention. Methods we searched the literature for trials of interventions aimed at preventing falls. We included trials if they met the following criteria: (i) participants were randomly allocated to intervention and control groups, (ii) all participants were aged 65 years or older, (iii) the majority lived independently in the community, (iv) fall events were recorded prospectively using a diary or calendar during the entire trial and monitored at least monthly, (v) follow up was for 12 months or longer, (vi) at least 70% of participants completed the trial, (vii) all falls during the trial for at least 50 participants were included in the analysis, and (viii) a relative rate ratio with 95% CI comparing the number of falls in the intervention and control groups was reported. We calculated a pooled rate ratio separately for trials testing multifactorial and single interventions and compared their overall efficacy using meta-regression. Results meta-regression showed that single interventions were as effective in reducing falls as interventions with multiple components (pooled rate ratios 0.77, 95% CI 0.67–0.89 and 0.78, 0.68–0.89 respectively). Conclusion multifactorial fall prevention interventions are effective for individual patients. However, for community programmes for populations at risk, targeted single interventions are as effective as multifactorial interventions, may be more acceptable and cost effective.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0002-0729</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1468-2834</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1093/ageing/afm122</identifier><identifier>PMID: 18056731</identifier><identifier>CODEN: AANGAH</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>England: Oxford University Press</publisher><subject>Accident Prevention - methods ; accidental falls ; Accidental Falls - prevention & control ; Aged ; Aged, 80 and over ; Causality ; Community based preventive programmes ; Comparative studies ; elderly ; Elderly people ; Falls ; Follow-Up Studies ; Humans ; meta-analysis ; Older people ; Prevention programs ; Preventive programmes ; Public health ; randomised controlled trials ; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic ; Regression Analysis ; Risk Factors</subject><ispartof>Age and ageing, 2007-11, Vol.36 (6), p.656-662</ispartof><rights>Copyright © The Author 2007. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the British Geriatrics Society. 2007</rights><rights>Copyright © The Author 2007. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the British Geriatrics Society.</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c525t-706c95768fee9030d32655461799614cc35199bae64745e8d9c7ffe93e3eb4d83</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c525t-706c95768fee9030d32655461799614cc35199bae64745e8d9c7ffe93e3eb4d83</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><link.rule.ids>314,780,784,1584,27924,27925,30999,31000</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18056731$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Campbell, A. John</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Robertson, M. Clare</creatorcontrib><title>Rethinking individual and community fall prevention strategies: a meta-regression comparing single and multifactorial interventions</title><title>Age and ageing</title><addtitle>Age Ageing</addtitle><addtitle>Age Ageing</addtitle><description>Background guidelines recommend that fall prevention programmes for older people include multifactorial interventions. Objective we aimed to determine if randomised controlled trial evidence supports interventions with multiple components over single strategies in community based fall prevention. Methods we searched the literature for trials of interventions aimed at preventing falls. We included trials if they met the following criteria: (i) participants were randomly allocated to intervention and control groups, (ii) all participants were aged 65 years or older, (iii) the majority lived independently in the community, (iv) fall events were recorded prospectively using a diary or calendar during the entire trial and monitored at least monthly, (v) follow up was for 12 months or longer, (vi) at least 70% of participants completed the trial, (vii) all falls during the trial for at least 50 participants were included in the analysis, and (viii) a relative rate ratio with 95% CI comparing the number of falls in the intervention and control groups was reported. We calculated a pooled rate ratio separately for trials testing multifactorial and single interventions and compared their overall efficacy using meta-regression. Results meta-regression showed that single interventions were as effective in reducing falls as interventions with multiple components (pooled rate ratios 0.77, 95% CI 0.67–0.89 and 0.78, 0.68–0.89 respectively). Conclusion multifactorial fall prevention interventions are effective for individual patients. However, for community programmes for populations at risk, targeted single interventions are as effective as multifactorial interventions, may be more acceptable and cost effective.</description><subject>Accident Prevention - methods</subject><subject>accidental falls</subject><subject>Accidental Falls - prevention & control</subject><subject>Aged</subject><subject>Aged, 80 and over</subject><subject>Causality</subject><subject>Community based preventive programmes</subject><subject>Comparative studies</subject><subject>elderly</subject><subject>Elderly people</subject><subject>Falls</subject><subject>Follow-Up Studies</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>meta-analysis</subject><subject>Older people</subject><subject>Prevention programs</subject><subject>Preventive programmes</subject><subject>Public health</subject><subject>randomised controlled trials</subject><subject>Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic</subject><subject>Regression Analysis</subject><subject>Risk Factors</subject><issn>0002-0729</issn><issn>1468-2834</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2007</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><sourceid>7QJ</sourceid><recordid>eNqFkc9rFDEYhoModq0evcrgQbyMzY9JMvEmi7aFFqWsULyEbOabNe1MZppkij37jzfbGRR66SUh5Mnz8uVF6C3BnwhW7MjswPndkWl7QukztCKVqEtas-o5WmGMaYklVQfoVYxX-Ug4oS_RAakxF5KRFfp7Aem389fZUTjfuFvXTKYrjG8KO_T95F26K1rTdcUY4BZ8coMvYgomwc5B_FyYoodkygC7ADHub_O70YS9MOalgwdZP3XJtcamIbjsdz5BWHTxNXqREyK8WfZD9PPb1836pDz7fny6_nJWWk55KiUWVnEp6hZAYYYbRgXnlSBSKUEqaxknSm0NiEpWHOpGWdm2oBgw2FZNzQ7Rh9k7huFmgph076KFrjMehilqofL_SC6eBLmknEnOM_j-EXg1TMHnITQlFck18H1sOUM2DDEGaPUYXG_CnSZY7zvUc4d67jDz7xbptO2h-U8vpWXg4wwM0_ika8l2McGff7AJ1zqrJNcnl7_0j835-nJzgbVi99BJuPw</recordid><startdate>20071101</startdate><enddate>20071101</enddate><creator>Campbell, A. John</creator><creator>Robertson, M. Clare</creator><general>Oxford University Press</general><general>Oxford Publishing Limited (England)</general><scope>BSCLL</scope><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7QJ</scope><scope>7T5</scope><scope>7TK</scope><scope>7U9</scope><scope>H94</scope><scope>K9.</scope><scope>NAPCQ</scope><scope>7X8</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20071101</creationdate><title>Rethinking individual and community fall prevention strategies: a meta-regression comparing single and multifactorial interventions</title><author>Campbell, A. John ; Robertson, M. Clare</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c525t-706c95768fee9030d32655461799614cc35199bae64745e8d9c7ffe93e3eb4d83</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2007</creationdate><topic>Accident Prevention - methods</topic><topic>accidental falls</topic><topic>Accidental Falls - prevention & control</topic><topic>Aged</topic><topic>Aged, 80 and over</topic><topic>Causality</topic><topic>Community based preventive programmes</topic><topic>Comparative studies</topic><topic>elderly</topic><topic>Elderly people</topic><topic>Falls</topic><topic>Follow-Up Studies</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>meta-analysis</topic><topic>Older people</topic><topic>Prevention programs</topic><topic>Preventive programmes</topic><topic>Public health</topic><topic>randomised controlled trials</topic><topic>Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic</topic><topic>Regression Analysis</topic><topic>Risk Factors</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Campbell, A. John</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Robertson, M. Clare</creatorcontrib><collection>Istex</collection><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>Applied Social Sciences Index & Abstracts (ASSIA)</collection><collection>Immunology Abstracts</collection><collection>Neurosciences Abstracts</collection><collection>Virology and AIDS Abstracts</collection><collection>AIDS and Cancer Research Abstracts</collection><collection>ProQuest Health & Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>Nursing & Allied Health Premium</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>Age and ageing</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Campbell, A. John</au><au>Robertson, M. Clare</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Rethinking individual and community fall prevention strategies: a meta-regression comparing single and multifactorial interventions</atitle><jtitle>Age and ageing</jtitle><stitle>Age Ageing</stitle><addtitle>Age Ageing</addtitle><date>2007-11-01</date><risdate>2007</risdate><volume>36</volume><issue>6</issue><spage>656</spage><epage>662</epage><pages>656-662</pages><issn>0002-0729</issn><eissn>1468-2834</eissn><coden>AANGAH</coden><abstract>Background guidelines recommend that fall prevention programmes for older people include multifactorial interventions. Objective we aimed to determine if randomised controlled trial evidence supports interventions with multiple components over single strategies in community based fall prevention. Methods we searched the literature for trials of interventions aimed at preventing falls. We included trials if they met the following criteria: (i) participants were randomly allocated to intervention and control groups, (ii) all participants were aged 65 years or older, (iii) the majority lived independently in the community, (iv) fall events were recorded prospectively using a diary or calendar during the entire trial and monitored at least monthly, (v) follow up was for 12 months or longer, (vi) at least 70% of participants completed the trial, (vii) all falls during the trial for at least 50 participants were included in the analysis, and (viii) a relative rate ratio with 95% CI comparing the number of falls in the intervention and control groups was reported. We calculated a pooled rate ratio separately for trials testing multifactorial and single interventions and compared their overall efficacy using meta-regression. Results meta-regression showed that single interventions were as effective in reducing falls as interventions with multiple components (pooled rate ratios 0.77, 95% CI 0.67–0.89 and 0.78, 0.68–0.89 respectively). Conclusion multifactorial fall prevention interventions are effective for individual patients. However, for community programmes for populations at risk, targeted single interventions are as effective as multifactorial interventions, may be more acceptable and cost effective.</abstract><cop>England</cop><pub>Oxford University Press</pub><pmid>18056731</pmid><doi>10.1093/ageing/afm122</doi><tpages>7</tpages><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record> |
fulltext | fulltext |
identifier | ISSN: 0002-0729 |
ispartof | Age and ageing, 2007-11, Vol.36 (6), p.656-662 |
issn | 0002-0729 1468-2834 |
language | eng |
recordid | cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_69015756 |
source | MEDLINE; Applied Social Sciences Index & Abstracts (ASSIA); Oxford University Press Journals All Titles (1996-Current); EZB-FREE-00999 freely available EZB journals |
subjects | Accident Prevention - methods accidental falls Accidental Falls - prevention & control Aged Aged, 80 and over Causality Community based preventive programmes Comparative studies elderly Elderly people Falls Follow-Up Studies Humans meta-analysis Older people Prevention programs Preventive programmes Public health randomised controlled trials Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic Regression Analysis Risk Factors |
title | Rethinking individual and community fall prevention strategies: a meta-regression comparing single and multifactorial interventions |
url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2024-12-28T01%3A23%3A28IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Rethinking%20individual%20and%20community%20fall%20prevention%20strategies:%20a%20meta-regression%20comparing%20single%20and%20multifactorial%20interventions&rft.jtitle=Age%20and%20ageing&rft.au=Campbell,%20A.%20John&rft.date=2007-11-01&rft.volume=36&rft.issue=6&rft.spage=656&rft.epage=662&rft.pages=656-662&rft.issn=0002-0729&rft.eissn=1468-2834&rft.coden=AANGAH&rft_id=info:doi/10.1093/ageing/afm122&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E69015756%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=214128358&rft_id=info:pmid/18056731&rft_oup_id=10.1093/ageing/afm122&rfr_iscdi=true |