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 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.

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.

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.

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.