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.

Economic evaluation of digitally enabled aged and neurological rehabilitation care in the Activity and MObility UsiNg Technology (AMOUNT) trial.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate the trial-based cost-effectiveness of the addition of a tailored digitally enabled exercise intervention to usual care shown to be clinically effective in improving mobility in the Activity and MObility UsiNg Technology (AMOUNT) rehabilitation trial compared to usual care alone. DESIGN: Economic evaluation alongside a pragmatic randomized controlled trial. PARTICIPANTS: 300 people receiving inpatient aged and neurological rehabilitation were randomized to the intervention (n = 149) or usual care control group (n = 151). MAIN MEASURES: Incremental cost effectiveness ratios were calculated for the additional costs per additional person demonstrating a meaningful improvement in mobility (3-point in Short Physical Performance Battery) and quality-adjusted life years gained at 6 months (primary analysis). The joint probability distribution of costs and outcomes was examined using bootstrapping. RESULTS: The mean cost saving for the intervention group at 6 months was AU$2286 (95% Bootstrapped cost CI: -$11,190 to $6410) per participant; 68% and 67% of bootstraps showed the intervention to be dominant (i.e. more effective and cost saving) for mobility and quality-adjusted life years, respectively. The probability of the intervention being cost-effective considering a willingness to pay threshold of AU$50,000 per additional person with a meaningful improvement in mobility or quality-adjusted life year gained was 93% and 77%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The AMOUNT intervention had a high probability of being cost-effective if decision makers are willing to pay AU$50,000 per meaningful improvement in mobility or per quality-adjusted life year gained, and a moderate probability of being cost-saving and effective considering both outcomes at 6 months post randomization.

Mobility training for increasing mobility and functioning in older people with frailty.

BACKGROUND: Frailty is common in older people and is characterised by decline across multiple body systems, causing decreased physiological reserve and increased vulnerability to adverse health outcomes. It is estimated that 21% of the community-dwelling population over 65 years are frail. Frailty is independently predictive of falls, worsening mobility, deteriorating functioning, impaired activities of daily living, and death. The World Health Organization's International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF) defines mobility as: changing and maintaining a body position, walking, and moving. Common interventions used to increase mobility include functional exercises, such as sit-to-stand, walking, or stepping practice. OBJECTIVES: To summarise the evidence for the benefits and safety of mobility training on overall functioning and mobility in frail older people living in the community. SEARCH METHODS: We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, AMED, PEDro, US National Institutes of Health Ongoing Trials Register, and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (June 2021). SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating the effects of mobility training on mobility and function in frail people aged 65+ years living in the community. We defined community as those residing either at home or in places that do not provide rehabilitative services or residential health-related care, for example, retirement villages, sheltered housing, or hostels.  DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We undertook an 'umbrella' comparison of all types of mobility training versus control. MAIN RESULTS: This review included 12 RCTs, with 1317 participants, carried out in 9 countries. The median number of participants in the trials was 97. The mean age of the included participants was 82 years. The majority of trials had unclear or high risk of bias for one or more items. All trials compared mobility training with a control intervention (defined as one that is not thought to improve mobility, such as general health education, social visits, very gentle exercise, or "sham" exercise not expected to impact on mobility). High-certainty evidence showed that mobility training improves the level of mobility upon completion of the intervention period. The mean mobility score was 4.69 in the control group, and with mobility training, this score improved by 1.00 point (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.51 to 1.51) on the Short Physical Performance Battery (on a scale of 0 to 12; higher scores indicate better mobility levels) (12 studies, 1151 participants). This is a clinically significant change (minimum clinically important difference: 0.5 points; absolute improvement of 8% (4% higher to 13% higher); number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB) 5 (95% CI 3.00 to 9.00)). This benefit was maintained at six months post-intervention. Moderate-certainty evidence (downgraded for inconsistency) showed that mobility training likely improves the level of functioning upon completion of the intervention. The mean function score was 86.1 in the control group, and with mobility training, this score improved by 8.58 points (95% CI 3.00 to 14.30) on the Barthel Index (on a scale of 0 to 100; higher scores indicate better functioning levels) (9 studies, 916 participants) (absolute improvement of 9% (3% higher to 14% higher)). This result did not reach clinical significance (9.8 points). This benefit did not appear to be maintained six months after the intervention. We are uncertain of the effect of mobility training on adverse events as we assessed the certainty of the evidence as very low (downgraded one level for imprecision and two levels for bias). The number of events was 771 per 1000 in the control group and 562 per 1000 in the group with mobility training (risk ratio (RR) 0.74, 95% CI 0.63 to 0.88; 2 studies, 225 participants) (absolute difference of 19% fewer (9% fewer to 26% fewer)). Mobility training may result in little to no difference in the number of people who are admitted to nursing care facilities at the end of the intervention period as the 95% confidence interval includes the possibility of both a reduced and increased number of admissions to nursing care facilities (low-certainty evidence, downgraded for imprecision and bias). The number of events was 248 per 1000 in the control group and 208 per 1000 in the group with mobility training (RR 0.84, 95% CI 0.53 to 1.34; 1 study, 241 participants) (absolute difference of 4% fewer (8% more to 12% fewer)). Mobility training may result in little to no difference in the number of people who fall as the 95% confidence interval includes the possibility of both a reduced and increased number of fallers (low-certainty evidence, downgraded for imprecision and study design limitations). The number of events was 573 per 1000 in the control group and 584 per 1000 in the group with mobility training (RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.87 to 1.20; 2 studies, 425 participants) (absolute improvement of 1% (12% more to 7% fewer)). Mobility training probably results in little to no difference in the death rate at the end of the intervention period as the 95% confidence interval includes the possibility of both a reduced and increased death rate (moderate-certainty evidence, downgraded for bias). The number of events was 51 per 1000 in the control group and 59 per 1000 in the group with mobility training (RR 1.16, 95% CI 0.64 to 2.10; 6 studies, 747 participants) (absolute improvement of 1% (6% more to 2% fewer)). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The data in the review supports the use of mobility training for improving mobility in a frail community-dwelling older population. High-certainty evidence shows that compared to control, mobility training improves the level of mobility, and moderate-certainty evidence shows it may improve the level of functioning in frail community-dwelling older people. There is moderate-certainty evidence that the improvement in mobility continues six months post-intervention. Mobility training may make little to no difference to the number of people who fall or are admitted to nursing care facilities, or to the death rate. We are unsure of the effect on adverse events as the certainty of evidence was very low.

Interventions for improving mobility after hip fracture surgery in adults.

BACKGROUND: Improving mobility outcomes after hip fracture is key to recovery. Possible strategies include gait training, exercise and muscle stimulation. This is an update of a Cochrane Review last published in 2011. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effects (benefits and harms) of interventions aimed at improving mobility and physical functioning after hip fracture surgery in adults. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Bone, Joint and Muscle Trauma Group Specialised Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, trial registers and reference lists, to March 2021. SELECTION CRITERIA: All randomised or quasi-randomised trials assessing mobility strategies after hip fracture surgery. Eligible strategies aimed to improve mobility and included care programmes, exercise (gait, balance and functional training, resistance/strength training, endurance, flexibility, three-dimensional (3D) exercise and general physical activity) or muscle stimulation. Intervention was compared with usual care (in-hospital) or with usual care, no intervention, sham exercise or social visit (post-hospital). DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Members of the review author team independently selected trials for inclusion, assessed risk of bias and extracted data. We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. We used the assessment time point closest to four months for in-hospital studies, and the time point closest to the end of the intervention for post-hospital studies. Critical outcomes were mobility, walking speed, functioning, health-related quality of life, mortality, adverse effects and return to living at pre-fracture residence. MAIN RESULTS: We included 40 randomised controlled trials (RCTs) with 4059 participants from 17 countries. On average, participants were 80 years old and 80% were women. The median number of study participants was 81 and all trials had unclear or high risk of bias for one or more domains. Most trials excluded people with cognitive impairment (70%), immobility and/or medical conditions affecting mobility (72%). In-hospital setting, mobility strategy versus control Eighteen trials (1433 participants) compared mobility strategies with control (usual care) in hospitals. Overall, such strategies may lead to a moderate, clinically-meaningful increase in mobility (standardised mean difference (SMD) 0.53, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.10 to 0.96; 7 studies, 507 participants; low-certainty evidence) and a small, clinically meaningful improvement in walking speed (CI crosses zero so does not rule out a lack of effect (SMD 0.16, 95% CI -0.05 to 0.37; 6 studies, 360 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Mobility strategies may make little or no difference to short-term (risk ratio (RR) 1.06, 95% CI 0.48 to 2.30; 6 studies, 489 participants; low-certainty evidence) or long-term mortality (RR 1.22, 95% CI 0.48 to 3.12; 2 studies, 133 participants; low-certainty evidence), adverse events measured by hospital re-admission (RR 0.70, 95% CI 0.44 to 1.11; 4 studies, 322 participants; low-certainty evidence), or return to pre-fracture residence (RR 1.07, 95% CI 0.73 to 1.56; 2 studies, 240 participants; low-certainty evidence). We are uncertain whether mobility strategies improve functioning or health-related quality of life as the certainty of evidence was very low. Gait, balance and functional training probably causes a moderate improvement in mobility (SMD 0.57, 95% CI 0.07 to 1.06; 6 studies, 463 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). There was little or no difference in effects on mobility for resistance training. No studies of other types of exercise or electrical stimulation reported mobility outcomes. Post-hospital setting, mobility strategy versus control Twenty-two trials (2626 participants) compared mobility strategies with control (usual care, no intervention, sham exercise or social visit) in the post-hospital setting. Mobility strategies lead to a small, clinically meaningful increase in mobility (SMD 0.32, 95% CI 0.11 to 0.54; 7 studies, 761 participants; high-certainty evidence) and a small, clinically meaningful improvement in walking speed compared to control (SMD 0.16, 95% CI 0.04 to 0.29; 14 studies, 1067 participants; high-certainty evidence). Mobility strategies lead to a small, non-clinically meaningful increase in functioning (SMD 0.23, 95% CI 0.10 to 0.36; 9 studies, 936 participants; high-certainty evidence), and probably lead to a slight increase in quality of life that may not be clinically meaningful (SMD 0.14, 95% CI -0.00 to 0.29; 10 studies, 785 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Mobility strategies probably make little or no difference to short-term mortality (RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.49 to 2.06; 8 studies, 737 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Mobility strategies may make little or no difference to long-term mortality (RR 0.73, 95% CI 0.39 to 1.37; 4 studies, 588 participants; low-certainty evidence) or adverse events measured by hospital re-admission (95% CI includes a large reduction and large increase, RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.52 to 1.42; 2 studies, 206 participants; low-certainty evidence). Training involving gait, balance and functional exercise leads to a small, clinically meaningful increase in mobility (SMD 0.20, 95% CI 0.05 to 0.36; 5 studies, 621 participants; high-certainty evidence), while training classified as being primarily resistance or strength exercise may lead to a clinically meaningful increase in mobility measured using distance walked in six minutes (mean difference (MD) 55.65, 95% CI 28.58 to 82.72; 3 studies, 198 participants; low-certainty evidence). Training involving multiple intervention components probably leads to a substantial, clinically meaningful increase in mobility (SMD 0.94, 95% CI 0.53 to 1.34; 2 studies, 104 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). We are uncertain of the effect of aerobic training on mobility (very low-certainty evidence). No studies of other types of exercise or electrical stimulation reported mobility outcomes. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Interventions targeting improvement in mobility after hip fracture may cause clinically meaningful improvement in mobility and walking speed in hospital and post-hospital settings, compared with conventional care. Interventions that include training of gait, balance and functional tasks are particularly effective. There was little or no between-group difference in the number of adverse events reported. Future trials should include long-term follow-up and economic outcomes, determine the relative impact of different types of exercise and establish effectiveness in emerging economies.

Economic evaluations of fall prevention exercise programs: a systematic review.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate cost-effectiveness and costs of fall prevention exercise programmes for older adults. DESIGN: Systematic review. DATA SOURCES: Medline, Embase, Web of Science, Scopus, National Institute for Health Research Economic Evaluation Database, Health Technology Assessment database, Tufts Cost-Effectiveness Analysis Registry, Research Papers in Economics and EconLit (inception to May 2022). ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA FOR STUDY SELECTION: Economic evaluations (trial-based or model-based) and costing studies investigating fall prevention exercise programmes versus no intervention or usual care for older adults living in the community or care facilities, and reporting incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) for fall-related outcomes or quality-adjusted life years (QALY, expressed as cost/QALY) and/or intervention costs. RESULTS: 31 studies were included. For community-dwelling older adults (21 economic evaluations, 6 costing studies), results ranged from more effective and less costly (dominant) interventions up to an ICER of US$279 802/QALY gained and US$11 986/fall prevented (US$ in 2020). Assuming an arbitrary willingness-to-pay threshold (US$100 000/QALY), most results (17/24) were considered cost-effective (moderate certainty). The greatest value for money (lower ICER/QALY gained and fall prevented) appeared to accrue for older adults and those with high fall risk, but unsupervised exercise appeared to offer poor value for money (higher ICER/QALY). For care facilities (two economic evaluations, two costing studies), ICERs ranged from dominant (low certainty) to US$35/fall prevented (moderate certainty). Overall, intervention costs varied and were poorly reported. CONCLUSIONS: Most economic evaluations investigated fall prevention exercise programmes for older adults living in the community. There is moderate certainty evidence that fall prevention exercise programmes are likely to be cost-effective. The evidence for older adults living in care facilities is more limited but promising. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: PROSPERO 2020 CRD42020178023.

Exercise to Reduce Mobility Disability and Prevent Falls After Fall-Related Leg or Pelvic Fracture: RESTORE Randomized Controlled Trial.

BACKGROUND: Disability and falls are common following fall-related lower limb and pelvic fractures. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the impact of an exercise self-management intervention on mobility-related disability and falls after lower limb or pelvic fracture. DESIGN: Randomized controlled trial. PARTICIPANTS: Three hundred thirty-six community dwellers aged 60+ years within 2 years of lower limb or pelvic fracture recruited from hospitals and community advertising. INTERVENTIONS: RESTORE (Recovery Exercises and STepping On afteR fracturE) intervention (individualized, physiotherapist-prescribed home program of weight-bearing balance and strength exercises, fall prevention advice) versus usual care. MAIN MEASURES: Primary outcomes were mobility-related disability and rate of falls. KEY RESULTS: Primary outcomes were available for 80% of randomized participants. There were no significant between-group differences in mobility-related disability at 12 months measured by (a) Short Physical Performance Battery (continuous version, baseline-adjusted between-group difference 0.08, 95% CI - 0.01 to 0.17, p = 0.08, n = 273); (b) Activity Measure Post Acute Care score (0.18, 95% CI - 2.89 to 3.26, p = 0.91, n = 270); (c) Late Life Disability Instrument (1.37, 95% CI - 2.56 to 5.32, p = 0.49, n = 273); or in rate of falls over the 12-month study period (incidence rate ratio 0.96, 95% CI 0.69 to 1.34, n = 336, p = 0.83). Between-group differences favoring the intervention group were evident in some secondary outcomes: balance and mobility, fall risk (Physiological Profile Assessment tool), physical activity, mood, health and community outings, but these should be interpreted with caution due to risk of chance findings from multiple analyses. CONCLUSIONS: No statistically significant intervention impacts on mobility-related disability and falls were detected, but benefits were seen for secondary measures of balance and mobility, fall risk, physical activity, mood, health, and community outings. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry: ACTRN12610000805077.

Evidence on physical activity and osteoporosis prevention for people aged 65+ years: a systematic review to inform the WHO guidelines on physical activity and sedentary behaviour.

BACKGROUND: Various physical activity interventions for prevention and treatment of osteoporosis have been designed and evaluated, but the effect of such interventions on the prevention of osteoporosis in older people is unclear. The aim of this review was to investigate the association between physical activity and osteoporosis prevention in people aged 65 years and above. METHODS: A systematic review was conducted and searches for individual studies were conducted in PubMed (January 2010 to March 2020) and for systematic reviews were conducted in PubMed, Embase, CINAHL and SPORTDiscus (January 2008 to July 2020). Records were screened according to the following eligibility criteria: i) population: adults aged 65 years and older; ii) exposure: greater volume, duration, frequency, or intensity of physical activity; iii) comparison: no physical activity or lesser volume, duration, frequency, or intensity of physical activity; iv) outcome: osteoporosis related measures (e.g., bone mineral density). The methodological quality of included studies was assessed and meta-analysis summarised study effects. The GRADE approach was used to rate certainty of evidence. RESULTS: We included a total of 59 studies, including 12 observational studies and 47 trials. Within the included trials, 40 compared physical activity with no intervention controls, 11 compared two physical activity programs, and six investigated different doses of physical activity. Included studies suggest that physical activity interventions probably improve bone health among older adults and thus prevent osteoporosis (standardised effect size 0.15, 95% CI 0.05 to 0.25, 20 trials, moderate-certainty evidence, main or most relevant outcome selected for each of the included studies). Physical activity interventions probably improve lumbar spine bone mineral density (standardised effect size 0.17, 95% CI 0.04 to 0.30, 11 trials, moderate-certainty evidence) and may improve hip (femoral neck) bone mineral density (standardised effect size 0.09, 95% CI - 0.03 to 0.21, 14 trials, low-certainty evidence). Higher doses of physical activity and programs involving multiple exercise types or resistance exercise appear to be most effective. Typical programs for which significant intervention impacts were detected in trials were undertaken for 60+ mins, 2-3 times/week for 7+ months. Observational studies suggested a positive association between long-term total and planned physical activity on bone health. CONCLUSIONS: Physical activity probably plays a role in the prevention of osteoporosis. The level of evidence is higher for effects of physical activity on lumbar spine bone mineral density than for hip. Higher dose programs and those involving multiple exercises and resistance exercises appear to be more effective.

Evidence on physical activity and falls prevention for people aged 65+ years: systematic review to inform the WHO guidelines on physical activity and sedentary behaviour.

BACKGROUND: Exercise prevents falls in older adults. Regular updates of estimated effects of exercise on falls are warranted given the number of new trials, the increasing number of older people globally and the major consequences of falls and fall-related injuries. METHODS: This update of a 2019 Cochrane Review was undertaken to inform the World Health Organization guidelines on physical activity and sedentary behaviour. Searches were conducted in six databases. We included randomised controlled trials evaluating effects of any form of physical activity as a single intervention on falls in people aged 60+ years living in the community. Analyses explored dose-response relationships. The certainty of the evidence was assessed using Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE). RESULTS: This review included 116 studies, involving 25,160 participants; nine new studies since the 2019 Cochrane Review. Exercise reduces the rate of falls by 23% (pooled rate ratio (RaR) 0.77, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.71 to 0.83, 64 studies, high certainty evidence). Subgroup analysis showed variation in effects of different types of exercise (p < 0.01). Rate of falls compared with control is reduced by 24% from balance and functional exercises (RaR 0.76, 95% CI 0.70 to 0.82, 39 studies, high certainty evidence), 28% from programs involving multiple types of exercise (commonly balance and functional exercises plus resistance exercises, RaR 0.72, 95% CI 0.56 to 0.93, 15 studies, moderate certainty evidence) and 23% from Tai Chi (RaR 0.77, 95% CI 0.61 to 0.97, 9 studies, moderate certainty evidence). The effects of programs that primarily involve resistance training, dance or walking remain uncertain. Interventions with a total weekly dose of 3+ h that included balance and functional exercises were particularly effective with a 42% reduction in rate of falls compared to control (Incidence Rate Ratio (IRR) 0.58, 95% CI 0.45 to 0.76). Subgroup analyses showed no evidence of a difference in the effect on falls on the basis of participant age over 75 years, risk of falls as a trial inclusion criterion, individual versus group exercise, or whether a health professional delivered the intervention. CONCLUSIONS: Given the strength of this evidence, effective exercise programs should now be implemented at scale.

Exercise for preventing falls in older people living in the community: an abridged Cochrane systematic review.

OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of exercise interventions for preventing falls in older people living in the community. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials evaluating the effects of any form of exercise as a single intervention on falls in people aged 60+years living in the community. RESULTS: Exercise reduces the rate of falls by 23% (rate ratio (RaR) 0.77, 95% CI 0.71 to 0.83; 12 981 participants, 59 studies; high-certainty evidence). Subgroup analyses showed no evidence of a difference in effect on falls on the basis of risk of falling as a trial inclusion criterion, participant age 75 years+ or group versus individual exercise but revealed a larger effect of exercise in trials where interventions were delivered by a health professional (usually a physiotherapist). Different forms of exercise had different impacts on falls. Compared with control, balance and functional exercises reduce the rate of falls by 24% (RaR 0.76, 95% CI 0.70 to 0.81; 7920 participants, 39 studies; high-certainty evidence). Multiple types of exercise (commonly balance and functional exercises plus resistance exercises) probably reduce the rate of falls by 34% (RaR 0.66, 95% CI 0.50 to 0.88; 1374 participants, 11 studies; moderate-certainty evidence). Tai Chi may reduce the rate of falls by 19% (RaR 0.81, 95% CI 0.67 to 0.99; 2655 participants, 7 studies; low-certainty evidence). We are uncertain of the effects of programmes that primarily involve resistance training, dance or walking. CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS: Given the certainty of evidence, effective programmes should now be implemented.

Exercise for preventing falls in older people living in the community.

BACKGROUND: At least one-third of community-dwelling people over 65 years of age fall each year. Exercises that target balance, gait and muscle strength have been found to prevent falls in these people. An up-to-date synthesis of the evidence is important given the major long-term consequences associated with falls and fall-related injuries OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects (benefits and harms) of exercise interventions for preventing falls in older people living in the community. SEARCH METHODS: We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, three other databases and two trial registers up to 2 May 2018, together with reference checking and contact with study authors to identify additional studies. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating the effects of any form of exercise as a single intervention on falls in people aged 60+ years living in the community. We excluded trials focused on particular conditions, such as stroke. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. Our primary outcome was rate of falls. MAIN RESULTS: We included 108 RCTs with 23,407 participants living in the community in 25 countries. There were nine cluster-RCTs. On average, participants were 76 years old and 77% were women. Most trials had unclear or high risk of bias for one or more items. Results from four trials focusing on people who had been recently discharged from hospital and from comparisons of different exercises are not described here.Exercise (all types) versus control Eighty-one trials (19,684 participants) compared exercise (all types) with control intervention (one not thought to reduce falls). Exercise reduces the rate of falls by 23% (rate ratio (RaR) 0.77, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.71 to 0.83; 12,981 participants, 59 studies; high-certainty evidence). Based on an illustrative risk of 850 falls in 1000 people followed over one year (data based on control group risk data from the 59 studies), this equates to 195 (95% CI 144 to 246) fewer falls in the exercise group. Exercise also reduces the number of people experiencing one or more falls by 15% (risk ratio (RR) 0.85, 95% CI 0.81 to 0.89; 13,518 participants, 63 studies; high-certainty evidence). Based on an illustrative risk of 480 fallers in 1000 people followed over one year (data based on control group risk data from the 63 studies), this equates to 72 (95% CI 52 to 91) fewer fallers in the exercise group. Subgroup analyses showed no evidence of a difference in effect on both falls outcomes according to whether trials selected participants at increased risk of falling or not.The findings for other outcomes are less certain, reflecting in part the relatively low number of studies and participants. Exercise may reduce the number of people experiencing one or more fall-related fractures (RR 0.73, 95% CI 0.56 to 0.95; 4047 participants, 10 studies; low-certainty evidence) and the number of people experiencing one or more falls requiring medical attention (RR 0.61, 95% CI 0.47 to 0.79; 1019 participants, 5 studies; low-certainty evidence). The effect of exercise on the number of people who experience one or more falls requiring hospital admission is unclear (RR 0.78, 95% CI 0.51 to 1.18; 1705 participants, 2 studies, very low-certainty evidence). Exercise may make little important difference to health-related quality of life: conversion of the pooled result (standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.03, 95% CI -0.10 to 0.04; 3172 participants, 15 studies; low-certainty evidence) to the EQ-5D and SF-36 scores showed the respective 95% CIs were much smaller than minimally important differences for both scales.Adverse events were reported to some degree in 27 trials (6019 participants) but were monitored closely in both exercise and control groups in only one trial. Fourteen trials reported no adverse events. Aside from two serious adverse events (one pelvic stress fracture and one inguinal hernia surgery) reported in one trial, the remainder were non-serious adverse events, primarily of a musculoskeletal nature. There was a median of three events (range 1 to 26) in the exercise groups.Different exercise types versus controlDifferent forms of exercise had different impacts on falls (test for subgroup differences, rate of falls: P = 0.004, I² = 71%). Compared with control, balance and functional exercises reduce the rate of falls by 24% (RaR 0.76, 95% CI 0.70 to 0.81; 7920 participants, 39 studies; high-certainty evidence) and the number of people experiencing one or more falls by 13% (RR 0.87, 95% CI 0.82 to 0.91; 8288 participants, 37 studies; high-certainty evidence). Multiple types of exercise (most commonly balance and functional exercises plus resistance exercises) probably reduce the rate of falls by 34% (RaR 0.66, 95% CI 0.50 to 0.88; 1374 participants, 11 studies; moderate-certainty evidence) and the number of people experiencing one or more falls by 22% (RR 0.78, 95% CI 0.64 to 0.96; 1623 participants, 17 studies; moderate-certainty evidence). Tai Chi may reduce the rate of falls by 19% (RaR 0.81, 95% CI 0.67 to 0.99; 2655 participants, 7 studies; low-certainty evidence) as well as reducing the number of people who experience falls by 20% (RR 0.80, 95% CI 0.70 to 0.91; 2677 participants, 8 studies; high-certainty evidence). We are uncertain of the effects of programmes that are primarily resistance training, or dance or walking programmes on the rate of falls and the number of people who experience falls. No trials compared flexibility or endurance exercise versus control. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Exercise programmes reduce the rate of falls and the number of people experiencing falls in older people living in the community (high-certainty evidence). The effects of such exercise programmes are uncertain for other non-falls outcomes. Where reported, adverse events were predominantly non-serious.Exercise programmes that reduce falls primarily involve balance and functional exercises, while programmes that probably reduce falls include multiple exercise categories (typically balance and functional exercises plus resistance exercises). Tai Chi may also prevent falls but we are uncertain of the effect of resistance exercise (without balance and functional exercises), dance, or walking on the rate of falls.

Multifactorial falls prevention programmes for older adults presenting to the emergency department with a fall: systematic review and meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVE: To determine whether multifactorial falls prevention interventions are effective in preventing falls, fall injuries, emergency department (ED) re-presentations and hospital admissions in older adults presenting to the ED with a fall. DESIGN: Systematic review and meta-analyses of randomised controlled trials (RCTs). DATA SOURCES: Four health-related electronic databases (Ovid MEDLINE, CINAHL, EMBASE, PEDro and The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials) were searched (inception to June 2018). STUDY SELECTION: RCTs of multifactorial falls prevention interventions targeting community-dwelling older adults ( ≥ 60 years) presenting to the ED with a fall with quantitative data on at least one review outcome. DATA EXTRACTION: Two independent reviewers determined inclusion, assessed study quality and undertook data extraction, discrepancies resolved by a third. DATA SYNTHESIS: 12 studies involving 3986 participants, from six countries, were eligible for inclusion. Studies were of variable methodological quality. Multifactorial interventions were heterogeneous, though the majority included education, referral to healthcare services, home modifications, exercise and medication changes. Meta-analyses demonstrated no reduction in falls (rate ratio = 0.78; 95% CI: 0.58 to 1.05), number of fallers (risk ratio = 1.02; 95% CI: 0.88 to 1.18), rate of fractured neck of femur (risk ratio = 0.82; 95% CI: 0.53 to 1.25), fall-related ED presentations (rate ratio = 0.99; 95% CI: 0.84 to 1.16) or hospitalisations (rate ratio = 1.14; 95% CI: 0.69 to 1.89) with multifactorial falls prevention programmes. CONCLUSIONS: There is insufficient evidence to support the use of multifactorial interventions to prevent falls or hospital utilisation in older people presenting to ED following a fall. Further research targeting this population group is required.

Exercise to prevent falls in older adults: an updated systematic review and meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVE: Previous meta-analyses have found that exercise prevents falls in older people. This study aimed to test whether this effect is still present when new trials are added, and it explores whether characteristics of the trial design, sample or intervention are associated with greater fall prevention effects. DESIGN: Update of a systematic review with random effects meta-analysis and meta-regression. DATA SOURCES: Cochrane Library, CINAHL, MEDLINE, EMBASE, PubMed, PEDro and SafetyLit were searched from January 2010 to January 2016. STUDY ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials that compared fall rates in older people randomised to receive exercise as a single intervention with fall rates in those randomised to a control group. RESULTS: 99 comparisons from 88 trials with 19 478 participants were available for meta-analysis. Overall, exercise reduced the rate of falls in community-dwelling older people by 21% (pooled rate ratio 0.79, 95% CI 0.73 to 0.85, p<0.001, I2 47%, 69 comparisons) with greater effects seen from exercise programmes that challenged balance and involved more than 3 hours/week of exercise. These variables explained 76% of the between-trial heterogeneity and in combination led to a 39% reduction in falls (incident rate ratio 0.61, 95% CI 0.53 to 0.72, p<0.001). Exercise also had a fall prevention effect in community-dwelling people with Parkinson's disease (pooled rate ratio 0.47, 95% CI 0.30 to 0.73, p=0.001, I2 65%, 6 comparisons) or cognitive impairment (pooled rate ratio 0.55, 95% CI 0.37 to 0.83, p=0.004, I2 21%, 3 comparisons). There was no evidence of a fall prevention effect of exercise in residential care settings or among stroke survivors or people recently discharged from hospital. SUMMARY/CONCLUSIONS: Exercise as a single intervention can prevent falls in community-dwelling older people. Exercise programmes that challenge balance and are of a higher dose have larger effects. The impact of exercise as a single intervention in clinical groups and aged care facility residents requires further investigation, but promising results are evident for people with Parkinson's disease and cognitive impairment.

A critical review of the long-term disability outcomes following hip fracture.

BACKGROUND: Hip fractures are an increasingly common consequence of falls in older people that are associated with a high risk of death and reduced function. This review aims to quantify the impact of hip fracture on older people's abilities and quality of life over the long term. METHODS: Studies were identified through PubMed and Scopus searches and contact with experts. Cohort studies of hip fracture patients reporting outcomes 3 months post-fracture or longer were included for review. Outcomes of mobility, participation in domestic and community activities, health, accommodation or quality of life were categorised according to the World Health Organization's International Classification of Functioning and synthesised narratively. Risk of bias was assessed according to four items from the Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) statement. RESULTS: Thirty-eight studies from 42 publications were included for review. Most followed a clearly defined sample from the time of fracture. Hip fracture survivors experienced significantly worse mobility, independence in function, health, quality of life and higher rates of institutionalisation than age matched controls. The bulk of recovery of walking ability and activities for daily living occurred within 6 months after fracture. Between 40 and 60 % of study participants recovered their pre-fracture level of mobility and ability to perform instrumental activities of daily living, while 40-70 % regained their level of independence for basic activities of daily living. For people independent in self-care pre-fracture, 20-60 % required assistance for various tasks 1 and 2 years after fracture. Fewer people living in residential care recovered their level of function than those living in the community. In Western nations, 10-20 % of hip fracture patients are institutionalised following fracture. Few studies reported impact on participation in domestic, community, social and civic life. CONCLUSIONS: Hip fracture has a substantial impact on older peoples' medium- to longer-term abilities, function, quality of life and accommodation. These studies indicate the range of current outcomes rather than potential improvements with different interventional approaches. Future studies should measure impact on life participation and determine the proportion of people that regain their pre-fracture level of functioning to investigate strategies for improving these important outcomes.

Exercise and fall prevention self-management to reduce mobility-related disability and falls after fall-related lower limb fracture in older people: protocol for the RESTORE (Recovery Exercises and STepping On afteR fracturE) randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Lasting disability and further falls are common and costly problems in older people following fall-related lower limb and pelvic fractures. Exercise interventions can improve mobility after fracture and reduce falls in older people, however the optimal approach to rehabilitation after fall-related lower limb and pelvic fracture is unclear. This randomised controlled trial aims to evaluate the effects of an exercise and fall prevention self-management intervention on mobility-related disability and falls in older people following fall-related lower limb or pelvic fracture. Cost-effectiveness of the intervention will also be investigated. METHODS/DESIGN: A randomised controlled trial with concealed allocation, assessor blinding for physical performance tests and intention-to-treat analysis will be conducted. Three hundred and fifty people aged 60 years and over with a fall-related lower limb or pelvic fracture, who are living at home or in a low care residential aged care facility and have completed active rehabilitation, will be recruited. Participants will be randomised to receive a 12-month intervention or usual care. The intervention group will receive ten home visits from a physiotherapist to prescribe an individualised exercise program with motivational interviewing, plus fall prevention education through individualised advice from the physiotherapist or attendance at the group based "Stepping On" program (seven two-hour group sessions). Participants will be followed for a 12-month period. Primary outcome measures will be mobility-related disability and falls. Secondary outcomes will include measures of balance and mobility, falls risk, physical activity, walking aid use, frailty, pain, nutrition, falls efficacy, mood, positive and negative affect, quality of life, assistance required, hospital readmission, and health-system and community-service contact. DISCUSSION: This study will determine the effect and cost-effectiveness of this exercise self management intervention on mobility-related disability and falls in older people who have recently sustained a fall-related lower limb or pelvic fracture. The results will have implications for the design and implementation of interventions for older people with fall related lower limb fractures. The findings of this study will be disseminated in peer-reviewed journals and through professional and scientific conferences. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry: ACTRN12610000805077.

What is the effect of a combined physical activity and fall prevention intervention enhanced with health coaching and pedometers on older adults' physical activity levels and mobility-related goals? Study protocol for a randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Physical inactivity and falls in older people are important public health problems. Health conditions that could be ameliorated with physical activity are particularly common in older people. One in three people aged 65 years and over fall at least once annually, often resulting in significant injuries and ongoing disability. These problems need to be urgently addressed as the population proportion of older people is rapidly rising. This trial aims to establish the impact of a combined physical activity and fall prevention intervention compared to an advice brochure on objectively measured physical activity participation and mobility-related goal attainment among people aged 60+. METHODS/DESIGN: A randomised controlled trial involving 130 consenting community-dwelling older people will be conducted. Participants will be individually randomised to a control group (n = 65) and receive a fall prevention brochure, or to an intervention group (n = 65) and receive the brochure plus physical activity promotion and fall prevention intervention enhanced with health coaching and a pedometer. Primary outcomes will be objectively measured physical activity and mobility-related goal attainment, measured at both six and 12 months post randomisation. Secondary outcomes will include: falls, the proportion of people meeting the physical activity guidelines, quality of life, fear of falling, mood, and mobility limitation. Barriers and enablers to physical activity participation will be measured 6 months after randomisation. General linear models will be used to assess the effect of group allocation on the continuously-scored primary and secondary outcome measures, after adjusting for baseline scores. Between-group differences in goal attainment (primary outcome) will be analysed with ordinal regression. The number of falls per person-year will be analysed using negative binomial regression models to estimate the between-group difference in fall rates after one year (secondary outcome). Modified Poisson regression models will compare groups on dichotomous outcome measures. Analyses will be pre-planned, conducted while masked to group allocation and will use an intention-to-treat approach. DISCUSSION: This trial will address a key gap in evidence regarding physical activity and fall prevention for older people and will evaluate a program that could be directly implemented within Australian health services. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ACTRN12614000016639, 7/01/2014.

Predicting participation restriction in community-dwelling older men: the Concord Health and Ageing in Men Project.

BACKGROUND: participation restriction, defined as 'problems an individual may experience in involvement in life situations' (e.g. work and leisure), reflects difficulty functioning at a societal level and is a key component of disability. Our objective was to describe changes in participation in older men over a 2-year period and to identify baseline variables associated with participation and change in participation over the 2-year period. METHODS: one thousand and three hundred and twenty-seven community-dwelling men aged 70 years or over who completed the baseline and 2-year follow-up phases of the Concord Health and Ageing in Men Project, a population-based cohort study in Sydney, Australia, were studied. Participation restriction and a range of other variables were measured using self-report and performance measures. Regression analyses were conducted to examine factors associated with participation and change in participation. RESULTS: over the 2-year period, participation in life roles deteriorated in 47.3% (627/1,327) of men, stayed the same in 20.7% (275/1,327) and improved in the remainder (32.0%). Overall, there was a significant deterioration in participation (P < 0.001). Reduced participation at 2-year follow-up was significantly associated with the following baseline factors: age, more comorbidities, mild cognitive impairment or dementia, lower mood, weakness, slower gait, worse activities of daily living performance, driving and baseline participation score. These variables explained 56% of the variance in participation at 2 years. CONCLUSION: participation in life roles worsened over a 2-year period in some community-dwelling older men. A number of associated factors were identified, which may provide targets for intervention to improve participation among older men.

Effect of a multifactorial, interdisciplinary intervention on risk factors for falls and fall rate in frail older people: a randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: frail older people have a high risk of falling. OBJECTIVE: assess the effect of a frailty intervention on risk factors for falls and fall rates in frail older people. DESIGN: randomised controlled trial. PARTICIPANTS: 241 community-dwelling people aged 70+ without severe cognitive impairment who met the Cardiovascular Health Study frailty definition. INTERVENTION: multifactorial, interdisciplinary intervention targeting frailty characteristics with an individualised home exercise programme prescribed in 10 home visits from a physiotherapist and interdisciplinary management of medical, psychological and social problems. MEASUREMENTS: risk factors for falls were measured using the Physiological Profile Assessment (PPA) and mobility measures at 12 months by a blinded assessor. Falls were monitored with calendars. RESULTS: participants had a mean (SD) age of 83.3 (5.9) years, 68% were women and 216 (90%) completed the study. After 12 months the intervention group had significantly better performance than the control group, after controlling for baseline values, in the PPA components of quadriceps strength (between-group difference 1.84 kg, 95% CI 0.17-3.51, P = 0.03) and body sway (-90.63 mm, 95% CI -168.6 to -12.6, P = 0.02), short physical performance battery (1.58, 95% CI 1.02-2.14, P ≤ 0.001) and 4 m walk (0.06 m/s 95% CI 0.01-0.10, P = 0.02) with a trend toward a better total PPA score (-0.40, 95% CI -0.83-0.04, P = 0.07) but no difference in fall rates (incidence rate ratio 1.12, 95% CI 0.78-1.63, P = 0.53). CONCLUSION: the intervention improved performance on risk factors for falls but did not reduce the rate of falls. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ACTRN12608000250336.

A multifactorial interdisciplinary intervention reduces frailty in older people: randomized trial.

BACKGROUND: Frailty is a well known and accepted term to clinicians working with older people. The study aim was to determine whether an intervention could reduce frailty and improve mobility. METHODS: We conducted a single center, randomized, controlled trial among older people who were frail in Sydney, Australia. One group received an intervention targeting the identified characteristics of frailty, whereas the comparison group received the usual health care and support services. Outcomes were assessed by raters masked to treatment allocation at 3 and 12 months after study entry. The primary outcomes were frailty as assessed by the Cardiovascular Health Study criteria, and mobility as assessed by the Short Physical Performance Battery. Secondary outcome measures included disability, depressive symptoms and health-related quality of life. RESULTS: A total of 216 participants (90%) completed the study. Overall, 68% of participants were women and the mean age was 83.3 years (standard deviation, 5.9). In the intention-to-treat analysis, the between-group difference in frailty was 14.7% at 12 months (95% confidence interval: 2.4%, 27.0%; P = 0.02). The score on the Short Physical Performance Battery, in which higher scores indicate better physical status, was stable in the intervention group and had declined in the control group; with the mean difference between groups being 1.44 (95% confidence interval, 0.80, 2.07; P <0.001) at 12 months. There were no major differences between the groups with respect to secondary outcomes. The few adverse events that occurred were exercise-associated musculoskeletal symptoms. CONCLUSIONS: Frailty and mobility disability can be successfully treated using an interdisciplinary multifaceted treatment program. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Australia and New Zealand Clinical Trials Register (ANZCTR): ACTRN12608000250336.

Exercise for fall prevention in community-dwelling people aged 60+: more effective in trials with higher fall rates in control groups.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Exercise is beneficial for fall prevention. Targeting interventions to people who fall more may lead to greater population impacts. As trials have used varying methods to assess participant risk level, prospectively-measured control group fall rates may provide a more accurate and poolable way to understand intervention effects in different subpopulations. We aimed to explore differences in effectiveness of fall prevention exercise according to prospectively-measured fall rate. METHODS: Secondary analysis of a Cochrane review investigating exercise for fall prevention in peopled aged ≥60 years. Meta-analysis assessed the impact of exercise on fall rate. Studies were dichotomized according to the median control group fall rate (0.87, IQR 0.54-1.37 falls/person-year). Meta-regression explored the effects on falls in trials with higher and lower control group fall rates. RESULTS: Exercise reduced the rate of falls in trials with higher (rate ratio 0.68, 95% CI 0.61-0.76, 31 studies) and lower control group fall rates (rate ratio 0.88, 95% CI 0.79-0.97, 31 studies, P = 0.006 for difference in effects). CONCLUSION: Exercise prevents falls, moreso in trials with higher control group fall rates. As past falls strongly predict future falls, targeting interventions to those with more past falls may be more efficient than other falls risk screening methods.

Effect of a multifactorial interdisciplinary intervention on mobility-related disability in frail older people: randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Interventions that enhance mobility in frail older people are needed to maintain health and independence, yet definitive evidence of effective interventions is lacking. Our objective was to assess the impact of a multifactorial intervention on mobility-related disability in frail older people. METHODS: We conducted a randomised, controlled trial with 241 frail community-dwelling older people in Sydney, Australia. Participants were classified as frail using the Cardiovascular Health Study definition, did not have severe cognitive impairment and were recently discharged from an aged care and rehabilitation service. The experimental group received a 12 month multifactorial, interdisciplinary intervention targeting identified frailty components. Two physiotherapists delivered a home exercise program targeting mobility, and coordinated management of psychological and medical conditions with other health professionals. The control group received usual care. Disability in the mobility domain was measured at baseline and at 3 and 12 months using the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health framework. Participation (involvement in life situations) was assessed using the Life Space Assessment and the Goal Attainment Scale. Activity (execution of mobility tasks) was measured using the 4-metre walk and self-report measures. RESULTS: The mean age of participants was 83.3 years (SD: 5.9 years). Of the participants recruited, 216 (90%) were followed-up at 12 months. At this time point, the intervention group had significantly better scores than the control group on the Goal Attainment Scale (odds ratio 2.1; 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.3 to 3.3, P = 0.004) and Life Space Assessment (4.68 points, 95% CI 1.4 to 9.9, P = 0.005). There was no difference between groups on the global measure of participation or satisfaction with ability to get out of the house. At the activity level, the intervention group walked 0.05 m/s faster over 4 m (95% CI 0.0004 to 0.1, P = 0.048) than the control group, and scored higher on the Activity Measure for Post Acute Care (P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: The intervention reduced mobility-related disability in frail older people. The benefit was evident at both the participation and activity levels of mobility-related disability. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Australia and New Zealand Clinical Trials Register (ANZCTR): ANZCTRN12608000507381.