Table 4.
Baseline characteristics
| Assistive living facility (ALF) characteristics | Control ‘usual care’ n = 9 |
Intervention ‘Exergames’ n = 9 |
| Location, n | ||
| Manchester | 6 | 6 |
| Glasgow | 3 | 3 |
| Manchester IMD ranka, median (range, IQR) | 14,844 (3319–23,972, (8839.0–18,169.25)) | 19,931 (4647–26,933) (11,715.8–26,543.0) |
| Glasgow SIMD rankb, median (range, IQR) | 2788 (1382–5907) (2085.0–4347.5) | 1004 (149–5100) (576.0–3052.0) |
| Manchester IMD decile, median (range, IQR) | 5 (2–9) | 6.5 (2–9) |
| Glasgow SIMD decile, median (range, IQR) | 4 (2–4) | 2 (1–8) |
| Participant characteristics | Control ‘usual care’ n = 50 |
Intervention ‘Exergames’ n = 56 |
| Participants, n | 50 | 56 |
| Manchester | 32 | 41 |
| Glasgow | 18 | 15 |
| Female sex, n (%) | 38 (76.0) | 45 (80.4) |
| Age, years (SD/range) | 77.8 (10.2/58–101) | 77.9 (8.9/58–96) |
| Ethnicity, n (%) | ||
| White British or Irish | 50 (100) | 52 (92.9) |
| Asian or Asian British | 0 (0.0) | 1 (1.8) |
| Mixed | 0 (0.0) | 2 (3.6) |
| Other ethnic groups | 0 (0.0) | 1 (1.8) |
| Employment, n (%) | ||
| Retired | 47 (94.0) | 54 (96.4) |
| Doing voluntary work | 1 (2.0) | 1 (1.8) |
| Unemployed through sickness/disability | 2 (4.0) | 1 (1.8) |
| Marital status, n (%) | ||
| Single, never married | 7 (14.0) | 10 (17.9) |
| Married/living with partner | 8 (16.0) | 2 (3.6) |
| Divorced | 6 (12.0) | 10 (17.9) |
| Separated | 1 (2.0) | 1 (1.8) |
| Widowed | 28 (56.0) | 33 (58.9) |
| 1 year history of falls, n (%) | ||
| No falls reported (non-fallers) | 21 (42) | 32 (57) |
| 1 fall reported (single fallers) | 14 (28) | 7 (13) |
| > 1 fall reported (multiple fallers) | 15 (30) | 17 (30) |
| Self-reported vision, n (%) | ||
| Excellent | 4 (8) | 7 (13) |
| Good | 24 (48) | 22 (39) |
| Fair | 16 (32) | 19 (34) |
| Poor | 5 (10) | 7 (13) |
| Very poor | 1 (2) | 0 (0) |
| Registered blind | 0 (0) | 1 (2) |
IMD and SIMD decile score ranges 1–10, where 1 is the least deprived and 10 the most deprived
aThe IMD (2015) rank is the Index of Multiple Deprivation and combines a number of indicators, chosen to cover a range of social, economic and housing issues, into a single deprivation ranked score, the lower the score the more deprived
bThe SIMD (2016) rank is the Scottish equivalent of the IMD rank