Interventions for preventing falls in older people living in the community

Lesley D Gillespie, M Clare Robertson, William J Gillespie, Catherine Sherrington, Simon Gates, Lindy M Clemson, Sarah E Lamb, Lesley D Gillespie, M Clare Robertson, William J Gillespie, Catherine Sherrington, Simon Gates, Lindy M Clemson, Sarah E Lamb

Abstract

Background: Approximately 30% of people over 65 years of age living in the community fall each year. This is an update of a Cochrane review first published in 2009.

Objectives: To assess the effects of interventions designed to reduce the incidence of falls in older people living in the community.

Search methods: We searched the Cochrane Bone, Joint and Muscle Trauma Group Specialised Register (February 2012), CENTRAL (The Cochrane Library 2012, Issue 3), MEDLINE (1946 to March 2012), EMBASE (1947 to March 2012), CINAHL (1982 to February 2012), and online trial registers.

Selection criteria: Randomised trials of interventions to reduce falls in community-dwelling older people.

Data collection and analysis: Two review authors independently assessed risk of bias and extracted data. We used a rate ratio (RaR) and 95% confidence interval (CI) to compare the rate of falls (e.g. falls per person year) between intervention and control groups. For risk of falling, we used a risk ratio (RR) and 95% CI based on the number of people falling (fallers) in each group. We pooled data where appropriate.

Main results: We included 159 trials with 79,193 participants. Most trials compared a fall prevention intervention with no intervention or an intervention not expected to reduce falls. The most common interventions tested were exercise as a single intervention (59 trials) and multifactorial programmes (40 trials). Sixty-two per cent (99/159) of trials were at low risk of bias for sequence generation, 60% for attrition bias for falls (66/110), 73% for attrition bias for fallers (96/131), and only 38% (60/159) for allocation concealment.Multiple-component group exercise significantly reduced rate of falls (RaR 0.71, 95% CI 0.63 to 0.82; 16 trials; 3622 participants) and risk of falling (RR 0.85, 95% CI 0.76 to 0.96; 22 trials; 5333 participants), as did multiple-component home-based exercise (RaR 0.68, 95% CI 0.58 to 0.80; seven trials; 951 participants and RR 0.78, 95% CI 0.64 to 0.94; six trials; 714 participants). For Tai Chi, the reduction in rate of falls bordered on statistical significance (RaR 0.72, 95% CI 0.52 to 1.00; five trials; 1563 participants) but Tai Chi did significantly reduce risk of falling (RR 0.71, 95% CI 0.57 to 0.87; six trials; 1625 participants).Multifactorial interventions, which include individual risk assessment, reduced rate of falls (RaR 0.76, 95% CI 0.67 to 0.86; 19 trials; 9503 participants), but not risk of falling (RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.86 to 1.02; 34 trials; 13,617 participants).Overall, vitamin D did not reduce rate of falls (RaR 1.00, 95% CI 0.90 to 1.11; seven trials; 9324 participants) or risk of falling (RR 0.96, 95% CI 0.89 to 1.03; 13 trials; 26,747 participants), but may do so in people with lower vitamin D levels before treatment.Home safety assessment and modification interventions were effective in reducing rate of falls (RR 0.81, 95% CI 0.68 to 0.97; six trials; 4208 participants) and risk of falling (RR 0.88, 95% CI 0.80 to 0.96; seven trials; 4051 participants). These interventions were more effective in people at higher risk of falling, including those with severe visual impairment. Home safety interventions appear to be more effective when delivered by an occupational therapist.An intervention to treat vision problems (616 participants) resulted in a significant increase in the rate of falls (RaR 1.57, 95% CI 1.19 to 2.06) and risk of falling (RR 1.54, 95% CI 1.24 to 1.91). When regular wearers of multifocal glasses (597 participants) were given single lens glasses, all falls and outside falls were significantly reduced in the subgroup that regularly took part in outside activities. Conversely, there was a significant increase in outside falls in intervention group participants who took part in little outside activity.Pacemakers reduced rate of falls in people with carotid sinus hypersensitivity (RaR 0.73, 95% CI 0.57 to 0.93; three trials; 349 participants) but not risk of falling. First eye cataract surgery in women reduced rate of falls (RaR 0.66, 95% CI 0.45 to 0.95; one trial; 306 participants), but second eye cataract surgery did not.Gradual withdrawal of psychotropic medication reduced rate of falls (RaR 0.34, 95% CI 0.16 to 0.73; one trial; 93 participants), but not risk of falling. A prescribing modification programme for primary care physicians significantly reduced risk of falling (RR 0.61, 95% CI 0.41 to 0.91; one trial; 659 participants).An anti-slip shoe device reduced rate of falls in icy conditions (RaR 0.42, 95% CI 0.22 to 0.78; one trial; 109 participants). One trial (305 participants) comparing multifaceted podiatry including foot and ankle exercises with standard podiatry in people with disabling foot pain significantly reduced the rate of falls (RaR 0.64, 95% CI 0.45 to 0.91) but not the risk of falling.There is no evidence of effect for cognitive behavioural interventions on rate of falls (RaR 1.00, 95% CI 0.37 to 2.72; one trial; 120 participants) or risk of falling (RR 1.11, 95% CI 0.80 to 1.54; two trials; 350 participants).Trials testing interventions to increase knowledge/educate about fall prevention alone did not significantly reduce the rate of falls (RaR 0.33, 95% CI 0.09 to 1.20; one trial; 45 participants) or risk of falling (RR 0.88, 95% CI 0.75 to 1.03; four trials; 2555 participants).No conclusions can be drawn from the 47 trials reporting fall-related fractures.Thirteen trials provided a comprehensive economic evaluation. Three of these indicated cost savings for their interventions during the trial period: home-based exercise in over 80-year-olds, home safety assessment and modification in those with a previous fall, and one multifactorial programme targeting eight specific risk factors.

Authors' conclusions: Group and home-based exercise programmes, and home safety interventions reduce rate of falls and risk of falling.Multifactorial assessment and intervention programmes reduce rate of falls but not risk of falling; Tai Chi reduces risk of falling.Overall, vitamin D supplementation does not appear to reduce falls but may be effective in people who have lower vitamin D levels before treatment.

Conflict of interest statement

Four review authors were investigators for 10 included studies: LM Clemson (Clemson 2004; Clemson 2010), WJ Gillespie (Carter 1997), MC Robertson (Campbell 1997; Campbell 1999c; Campbell 2005; Davis 2011a; Elley 2008; Robertson 2001a) and C Sherrington (Sherrington 2004). Investigators did not carry out 'Risk of bias' assessment on their own studies. No other conflicts are declared.

Figures

1
1
'Risk of bias' summary: review authors’ judgments about each methodological quality
item for each included study
2
2
'Risk of bias' graph: review authors’ judgments about each methodological quality item
presented as percentages across all included studies.
3
3
Funnel plot of Analysis 5.2: vitamin D (with or without calcium) vs control/placebo/calcium: number of fallers
1.1. Analysis
1.1. Analysis
Comparison 1: Exercise vs control, Outcome 1: Rate of falls
1.2. Analysis
1.2. Analysis
Comparison 1: Exercise vs control, Outcome 2: Number of fallers
1.3. Analysis
1.3. Analysis
Comparison 1: Exercise vs control, Outcome 3: Number of people sustaining a fracture
2.1. Analysis
2.1. Analysis
Comparison 2: Group exercise: multiple categories of exercise vs control: subgroup analysis by falls risk at baseline, Outcome 1: Rate of falls
2.2. Analysis
2.2. Analysis
Comparison 2: Group exercise: multiple categories of exercise vs control: subgroup analysis by falls risk at baseline, Outcome 2: Number of fallers
3.1. Analysis
3.1. Analysis
Comparison 3: Group exercise: Tai Chi vs control: subgroup analysis by falls risk at baseline, Outcome 1: Rate of falls
3.2. Analysis
3.2. Analysis
Comparison 3: Group exercise: Tai Chi vs control: subgroup analysis by falls risk at baseline, Outcome 2: Number of fallers
4.1. Analysis
4.1. Analysis
Comparison 4: Exercise vs exercise, Outcome 1: Rate of falls
4.2. Analysis
4.2. Analysis
Comparison 4: Exercise vs exercise, Outcome 2: Number of fallers
5.1. Analysis
5.1. Analysis
Comparison 5: Medication provision: vitamin D (with or without calcium) vs control/placebo/calcium, Outcome 1: Rate of falls
5.2. Analysis
5.2. Analysis
Comparison 5: Medication provision: vitamin D (with or without calcium) vs control/placebo/calcium, Outcome 2: Number of fallers
5.3. Analysis
5.3. Analysis
Comparison 5: Medication provision: vitamin D (with or without calcium) vs control/placebo/calcium, Outcome 3: Number of people sustaining a fracture
6.1. Analysis
6.1. Analysis
Comparison 6: Vitamin D (with or without calcium) vs control: subgroup analysis by falls risk at baseline, Outcome 1: Rate of falls
6.2. Analysis
6.2. Analysis
Comparison 6: Vitamin D (with or without calcium) vs control: subgroup analysis by falls risk at baseline, Outcome 2: Number of fallers
7.1. Analysis
7.1. Analysis
Comparison 7: Vitamin D (with or without calcium) vs control: subgroup analysis by vitamin D level at baseline, Outcome 1: Rate of falls
7.2. Analysis
7.2. Analysis
Comparison 7: Vitamin D (with or without calcium) vs control: subgroup analysis by vitamin D level at baseline, Outcome 2: Number of fallers
8.1. Analysis
8.1. Analysis
Comparison 8: Medication provision: vitamin D 2000 IU/day vs vitamin D 800 IU/day, Outcome 1: Rate of falls
8.2. Analysis
8.2. Analysis
Comparison 8: Medication provision: vitamin D 2000 IU/day vs vitamin D 800 IU/day, Outcome 2: Number of people sustaining a fracture
9.1. Analysis
9.1. Analysis
Comparison 9: Medication provision: vitamin D analogue vs placebo, Outcome 1: Rate of falls
9.2. Analysis
9.2. Analysis
Comparison 9: Medication provision: vitamin D analogue vs placebo, Outcome 2: Number of fallers
9.3. Analysis
9.3. Analysis
Comparison 9: Medication provision: vitamin D analogue vs placebo, Outcome 3: Number of people sustaining a fracture
9.4. Analysis
9.4. Analysis
Comparison 9: Medication provision: vitamin D analogue vs placebo, Outcome 4: Number of people developing hypercalcaemia
10.1. Analysis
10.1. Analysis
Comparison 10: Medication provision: other medications vs control, Outcome 1: Rate of falls
10.2. Analysis
10.2. Analysis
Comparison 10: Medication provision: other medications vs control, Outcome 2: Number of fallers
10.3. Analysis
10.3. Analysis
Comparison 10: Medication provision: other medications vs control, Outcome 3: Number of people sustaining a fracture
11.1. Analysis
11.1. Analysis
Comparison 11: Medication withdrawal vs control, Outcome 1: Rate of falls
11.2. Analysis
11.2. Analysis
Comparison 11: Medication withdrawal vs control, Outcome 2: Number of fallers
12.1. Analysis
12.1. Analysis
Comparison 12: Surgery vs control, Outcome 1: Rate of falls
12.2. Analysis
12.2. Analysis
Comparison 12: Surgery vs control, Outcome 2: Number of fallers
12.3. Analysis
12.3. Analysis
Comparison 12: Surgery vs control, Outcome 3: Number of people sustaining a fracture
13.1. Analysis
13.1. Analysis
Comparison 13: Fluid or nutrition therapy vs control, Outcome 1: Number of fallers
14.1. Analysis
14.1. Analysis
Comparison 14: Psychological interventions vs control, Outcome 1: Rate of falls
14.2. Analysis
14.2. Analysis
Comparison 14: Psychological interventions vs control, Outcome 2: Number of fallers
15.1. Analysis
15.1. Analysis
Comparison 15: Environment/assistive technology interventions: home safety vs control, Outcome 1: Rate of falls
15.2. Analysis
15.2. Analysis
Comparison 15: Environment/assistive technology interventions: home safety vs control, Outcome 2: Number of fallers
15.3. Analysis
15.3. Analysis
Comparison 15: Environment/assistive technology interventions: home safety vs control, Outcome 3: Number of participants sustaining a fracture
16.1. Analysis
16.1. Analysis
Comparison 16: Home safety intervention vs control: subgroup analysis by risk of falling at baseline, Outcome 1: Rate of falls
16.2. Analysis
16.2. Analysis
Comparison 16: Home safety intervention vs control: subgroup analysis by risk of falling at baseline, Outcome 2: Number of fallers
17.1. Analysis
17.1. Analysis
Comparison 17: Home safety intervention vs control: subgroup analysis by delivery personnel, Outcome 1: Rate of falls
17.2. Analysis
17.2. Analysis
Comparison 17: Home safety intervention vs control: subgroup analysis by delivery personnel, Outcome 2: Number of fallers
18.1. Analysis
18.1. Analysis
Comparison 18: Environment/assistive technology interventions: vision improvement vs control, Outcome 1: Rate of falls
18.2. Analysis
18.2. Analysis
Comparison 18: Environment/assistive technology interventions: vision improvement vs control, Outcome 2: Number of fallers
18.3. Analysis
18.3. Analysis
Comparison 18: Environment/assistive technology interventions: vision improvement vs control, Outcome 3: Number of people sustaining a fracture
19.1. Analysis
19.1. Analysis
Comparison 19: Environment/assistive technology interventions: footwear modification vs control, Outcome 1: Rate of falls
19.2. Analysis
19.2. Analysis
Comparison 19: Environment/assistive technology interventions: footwear modification vs control, Outcome 2: Number of fallers
20.1. Analysis
20.1. Analysis
Comparison 20: Knowledge/education interventions vs control, Outcome 1: Rate of falls
20.2. Analysis
20.2. Analysis
Comparison 20: Knowledge/education interventions vs control, Outcome 2: Number of fallers
21.1. Analysis
21.1. Analysis
Comparison 21: Multiple interventions, Outcome 1: Rate of falls
21.2. Analysis
21.2. Analysis
Comparison 21: Multiple interventions, Outcome 2: Number of fallers
21.3. Analysis
21.3. Analysis
Comparison 21: Multiple interventions, Outcome 3: Number of people sustaining a fracture
22.1. Analysis
22.1. Analysis
Comparison 22: Multifactorial intervention vs control, Outcome 1: Rate of falls
22.2. Analysis
22.2. Analysis
Comparison 22: Multifactorial intervention vs control, Outcome 2: Number of fallers
22.3. Analysis
22.3. Analysis
Comparison 22: Multifactorial intervention vs control, Outcome 3: Number of people sustaining a fracture
23.1. Analysis
23.1. Analysis
Comparison 23: Multifactorial intervention vs control: subgroup analysis by falls risk at baseline, Outcome 1: Rate of falls
23.2. Analysis
23.2. Analysis
Comparison 23: Multifactorial intervention vs control: subgroup analysis by falls risk at baseline, Outcome 2: Number of fallers
24.1. Analysis
24.1. Analysis
Comparison 24: Multifactorial intervention vs control: subgroup analysis by intensity of intervention, Outcome 1: Rate of falls
24.2. Analysis
24.2. Analysis
Comparison 24: Multifactorial intervention vs control: subgroup analysis by intensity of intervention, Outcome 2: Number of fallers
25.1. Analysis
25.1. Analysis
Comparison 25: Multifactorial intervention (setting 1) vs multifactorial intervention (setting 2), Outcome 1: Rate of falls
25.2. Analysis
25.2. Analysis
Comparison 25: Multifactorial intervention (setting 1) vs multifactorial intervention (setting 2), Outcome 2: Number of fallers
25.3. Analysis
25.3. Analysis
Comparison 25: Multifactorial intervention (setting 1) vs multifactorial intervention (setting 2), Outcome 3: Number of people sustaining a fracture

Source: PubMed

3
Abonnere