Study	Population	Intervention	Follow-Up, Number Contacts During Follow-Up	Outcomes Measured	Results
Gillespie: Cochrane Review (2003) (44)	Elderly RCTs Community-dwelling	Assessment plus multifactorial intervention – allelderly (n=4) Assessment plus multifactorial intervention –high-risk populations/previous fallers (n=5)	Varied	Number fallers, number injurious falls, number fractures	All Elderly Fallers: RR, 0.73 (0.63−0.85) Injurious Fall: RR, 0.68 (0.51−0.93) High-risk Population Fallers: RR, 0.86 (0.76−0.98) Injurious Fall: RR, 0.93 (0.61−1.44)
Clemson (2004) (178)	Aged 70+ Fall in previous year or concern about falling	Intervention (N=157) vs. control (N=153) Intervention: “Stepping On” Small group learning environment OT and content experts introduced areas of balance and strength exercises, coping with visual loss, regular visual screening, medication management, environmental and behavioral home safety, community safety.	Seven 2-hour group sessions One home visit by OT 1 booster session 3 months after session 7 (1.5 h) 14-month follow-up	Falls, falls efficacy scale (fear of falling), worry scale	Significant reduction in all falls: RR, 0.69 (0.50–0.96) Subgroup analyses showed effect in men (RR, 0.32, 95% CI, 0.17–0.59), persons aged ≥75 (RR, 0.62, 95% CI, 0.43– 0.89), and persons with history of falls (RR, 0.66, 95% CI, 0.46–0.95)
Davison (2005) (179)	Aged 65+ Recruited at ED for fall or fall-related injury Had 1 additional fall in preceding year	Intervention (N=159) vs. control (N=154) Hospital based medical assessment, home-based PT and OT assessment (medication, vision) Assessment of carotid sinus hypersensitivity and vasovagal hypersensitivity Gait and balance, assistive devices, environmental hazard assessment	1 year	Number of falls, number who fell, injury rates, hospital admission, mortality, fear of falling	Falls: RR, 0.64, 95% CI, 0.46–0.90 Fallers: RR, 0.95, 95% CI, 0.81–1.12 Fracture: RR, 0.53, 95% CI, 0.20–1.39 No difference in number of ED visits, hospital admissions due to fall, or mortality Duration of hospital admission significantly less for intervention group: mean difference, 3.6 (0.1–7.6)
Huang (2005) (180)	Aged 65+ Hospitalized for hip fracture Discharged to community	Intervention (N=63) vs. control (N=59) Intervention provided by master’s-prepared gerontological nurse First visit within 48 hours of admission One home visit 3–7 days after discharge Available by phone 7 days/week Telephone contact 1/week Brochures with information regarding medication and environment, nurse care and education, proper use of assistive devices, management of needed resources (including home care and assessment for rehabilitation facility)	Hospital admission to 3 months after discharge	Length of initial hospital stay, rate of readmission to hospital, rate of repeat falls, rate of survival, QoL	Hospitalized LOS (initial): significantly shorter (P = .002) Time to next readmission shorter in intervention group (P = .02) Survival time longer in intervention group (P = .04) No difference in the number repeat falls Mean QoL score significantly higher in intervention group (P < .05)
Lord (2005) (83)	Aged 75+ Stratified analysis by risk	Extensive intervention (N=210) and minimal intervention (N=206) vs. control (N=204) Extensive Intervention Group (EIG): Assessment, followed by counseling session where recommendations explained Group exercises and individualized exercises, vision, peripheral sensation counseling Minimal intervention Group (MIG): Provided with instruction sheets for home exercises, brief training sessions to teach exercises, list of group exercise programs near house, written advice on vision and precautions for loss of peripheral sensation Control group (CG): No intervention	12 months	Falls, injurious falls	No significant difference between EIG and CG and between MIG and CG EIG vs. CG Fallers: RR, 1.03 (0.83–1.27) Injuries: RR, 1.19 (0.92–1.54) MIG vs. CG Fallers: RR, 1.08 (0.88–1.34) Injuries: RR, 1.11 (0.85–1.46)
Mahoney (2007) (181)	Aged 65+ 2 falls in previous year, or 1 fall in previous 2 years with injury, or 1 fall in previous 2 years with gait or balance problems	Intervention (N=174) vs. control (N=175) Controls: home safety recommendations and advice to see doctor regarding falls Intervention 2 home visits plus 11 monthly telephone calls Link participants to existing medical care and service networks: e.g., home care, ophthalmology, podiatry Could have included assessment of: medications, vision, balance and gait, cognition, mood, functional status, home hazard evaluation Interventions include acquisition of assistive devices, exercise and medication review	1 year: 2 home visits followed by 11 monthly telephone calls	Accidental fall rate (denominator excluded any days in hospital or LTC home), all-cause hospitalization, LTC home admission, days in LTC home	No significant difference in any outcomes for overall group: Falls: RR, 0.81 (0.57–1.17), P = .27 Hosp: RR, 1.05, P = .82) LTC: RR, 0.72 (0.38–1.35) Subgroup analyses ≥2 falls in year prior: LTC admission rate: RR, 0.44 (0.21–0.91), P = .03 1 fall in year prior with gait or balance issues: hospitalization rate: RR, 4.02; P = .04 1 fall in year prior with injury: hospitalization rate: RR, 1.52; P = 0.30
Rubenstein (2007) (182)	Aged 65+ Veterans	Intervention (N=380) vs. control (N=412) Phone assessment resulting in Referral to geriatric assessment clinic (included physical exam, mental health, social and environmental status, and urinary incontinence evaluation and falls/gait impairment evaluation if necessary) Home-based primary care program for homebound individuals Primary care provider and other services Individuals were followed up with after 1 month, and again every 3 months for next 3 years.	3 years Phone contact every 3 months Initial assessment requiring initial phone interview and sometimes geriatric assessment	Falls, UI, mental health, hospital and nursing home admission	No significant differences in any target conditions between intervention and control groups at 1, 2, or 3 years follow-up Hospital utilization didn’t differ significantly between groups at 3 years’ follow-up.
Tinetti (1994) (183)	Aged 70+	Targeted intervention based on measured risk factors (N=153) vs. control (N=148) Interventions available include: behavioural recommendations for postural hypotension, medication review and withdrawal, environmental modifications, gait training, assistive devices, and exercise	1 year Monthly contact for 6 months	Falls, serious injuries	Adjusted incidence rate-ratio for falling: 0.69 (0.52–0.90)
Whitehead (2003) (93)	Aged 65+ Lived in community or low-care residential care (e.g., hostel) Fall-related ED visit	Intervention (N=70) vs. control (N=70) Intervention: Fall risk profile determined from questionnaire Potential interventions included medication review and withdrawal, environmental modifications, exercise, osteoporosis assessment	6 months Monthly contact	Falls, uptake of interventions	No significant reduction in fall incidence: OR, 1.7 (0.7–4.4) 86% of intervention group had taken up a preventive strategy during follow-up compared with 48% of the control group
Sjosten (2007)(184)In progress	Aged 65+(stratified 65–74, 75+) Fallen at least once in past	Intensive preventive programme (N=293) vs. counseling group (N=298) Tailored intervention according to risk factors, functional abilities and health status	12 months	Fall incidence, injurious falls	In progress
Elley (2007) (99) In progress	Aged 75+ Fallen in past year	Intervention (≥155) vs. Control (≥157) Control Group: Printed information on falls prevention and 2 social visits Intervention Group Medical and home hazards assessment and referral Otago exercise program for 1 year 5 home visits	12 months	Fall incidence, self-efficacy (fear of falling) level of physical activity, ADLs	In progress
Hendriks (2005)(185)In progress	Aged 65+ Visited hospital for fall	Intervention (N=166) vs. control (N=167) Examination by geriatrician, geriatric nurse and rehabilitation physician: comprehensive general examination, vision, mobility, balance, medication review OT assesses home environment and recommends adaptations, assistive devices, home care and behavioural change	Maximum intervention of 3.5 months 1 year follow-up	Falls, recurrent falls (2 or more), injurious falls, QoL	In progress (contacted and article has been submitted for publication)
Peeters (2007)(96)In progress	Aged 65+ Recently experienced a fall	Intervention (N=100) vs. control (N=100) Multifactorial risk assessment: general medical and drug history, fall and mobility history, physical examination, postural hypotension, visual impairment, parkinsonism, osteoporosis, gait disorders, psychotropic and cardiac drug use, environmental hazards Treatment can consist of withdrawal of psychotropic drugs, balance and strength exercises (PT), home hazard reduction (OT), referral to ophthalmologist or cardiologist	12 months 2 home visits, with measurements taken at 3, 6, 9, and 12 months	Number of falls, time to first fall, QoL, ADLs	In progress (follow-up completed in July 2008)

^*ADLs refers to activities of daily living; CG, control group; CI, confidence interval; ED, emergency department; EIG, extensive intervention group; LTC, long-term care; LOS, length of stay; MIG, minimal intervention group; OR, odds ratio; OT, occupational therapist; PT, physical therapist; QoL, quality of life; RCT, randomized controlled trial; RR, relative risk; UI, urinary incontinence.