Voukelatos 2015.

Methods	Study design: RCT Number of study arms: 2 Length of follow‐up: 12 months
Participants	Setting: Sydney, Australia Number of participants: 386 Number analysed: 339 Number lost to follow‐up: 47 Sample: community‐dwelling Age (years): mean 73.2 (range 65 ‐ 90) Sex: 74% female Inclusion criteria: 65 years and over community‐dwelling inactive (i.e. < 120 minutes of exercise a week) mobile (i.e. able to walk at least 50 m with minimal aid); able to communicate in English Exclusion criteria: medical condition precluding participation in the study, participating in another study
Interventions	1. Individual walking programme: 48‐week self‐paced walking programme by manual; focused on walking duration (12 weeks), walking intensity (12 weeks), maintaining the level of walking achieved in the previous stages (24 weeks); 6 telephone calls to help modify and support adherence 2. Control group: Mailed information about health issues, 6 telephone calls to discuss health information
Outcomes	1. Rate of falls 2. Number of people who experienced 1 or more falls (risk of falling) 3. Health‐related quality of life 4. Number of people who died
Duration of the study	48 weeks
Adherence	Not reported
Notes	Source of funding: NSW Ministry of Health Economic information: not reported
Risk of bias
Bias	Authors' judgement	Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)	Low risk	Randomisation scheme used randomised permuted blocks of 6 and 4 prepared by the chief investigator
Allocation concealment (selection bias)	Low risk	Sequentially‐numbered sealed opaque envelopes
Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias) All outcomes	Unclear risk	Participants and personnel unblinded but impact of unblinding unknown
Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) Falls	Unclear risk	Blinding not described. Insufficient information to permit judgement.
Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) Fractures	Unclear risk	Not applicable
Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) Hospital admission, medical attention and adverse events	Unclear risk	Not applicable
Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) Health related quality of life (self report)	High risk	Participants not blinded to group allocation
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) Falls and fallers	Unclear risk	Less than 20% of fall data were missing (12%). Missing data were unbalanced across groups, with 33/192 participants missing from the intervention group and 14/194 missing from the control group. The reasons for missing fall data at 24 months were not clear
Selective reporting (reporting bias)	Unclear risk	Minimum set of expected outcomes not reported (adverse events not reported)
Method of ascertaining falls (recall bias)	Low risk	Monitored for 48 weeks through monthly calendars. When participants reported a fall, they were contacted by telephone to confirm the fall and document any fall‐related injuries