Table 2.

Randomised controlled trials characteristics

Lead author (Year)	Setting	Interventions	Education content	Education delivery modes	Education design guiding principles	Education outcomes	Education quality	Fall outcomes
Aizen (2015) [52]	Sub-acute	Multifactorial v Usual Care	Behavioural and cognitive treatment with patient and family guidance	Not stated	Not stated	Not reported	2/17 Low	No difference in falls (falls per 1000 bed days: experimental 1; control 2) (p = 0.11)
Ang (2011) [34]	Acute	Multifactorial v Usual Care	Falls education based on individual falls risk	Face to face by nurses	Not stated	Not reported	6/17 Low	Less falls in experimental group than control group (p = 0.018)
Cumming (2008) [53]	Acute, sub-acute	Multifactorial v Usual Care	Falls education based on individual falls risk	Face to face by nurses	Not stated	Not reported	5/17 Low	No difference in falls (falls per 1000 bed days: experimental 9; control 9)
Dykes (2010) [54]	Acute	Multifactorial v Usual Care	Falls education based on individual falls risks	Handout	Yes. Handout designed to match consumer literacy	Not reported	4/17 Low	Less falls in experimental than control group (falls per 1000 bed days: experimental 3; control 4) (p = 0.04)
Haines (2011) [22]	Acute, sub-acute	Group 1: Combination Group 2: Materials Group 3: Usual Care	Education on falls, self-reflection of individual risk, falls strategies, goal setting	Face to face by physiotherapist Handout given by trained clinician Combination of all	Yes. Content based on health belief model and consumer feedback	Not reported	7/17 Moderate	No difference in falls (falls per 1000 bed days: combination 8; materials 8; control 9)
Hill (2009) [55]	Acute, sub-acute	Education of patient delivered by video v Education of patient delivered by handout	Education on risk of falls and falls prevention strategies	Handout Video	Yes. Content based on health belief model and utilising design and communication principles	Yes. Video group identified more falls prevention strategies than handout group (p = 0.02). Video group was more motivated and confident to reduce falls than handout group (p = 0.03)	8/17 Moderate	No falls outcome reported
Hill (2015) [38]	Sub-acute	Education of patient v Usual Care	Education on falls, cues to action and goal setting	Face to face plus handout plus video	Yes. Content based on health belief model and adult learning principles	Not reported	11/17 Moderate	Less falls in experimental group than control group (falls per 1000 bed days: experimental 8; control 14) (p = 0.03)
Kuhlenschmidt (2016) [31]	Acute	Education of patient v Usual Care	Education on fall risks, strategies and fear of falling, tailored to different risk categories	Face to face plus handout plus video by research nurses	Not stated	Yes. Risk perception changed more in the intervention group (p = 0.01)	11/17 Moderate	No falls outcomes reported
Kiyoshi-Teo (2019) [56]	Acute	Education of patient v Usual care	Education on fall risks, strategies and prompting behaviour change and self-reflection of falls prevention	Face to face plus handout by research nurse	Yes. Content based on motivational interviewing concept	Yes. No significant difference between groups in confidence, falls prevention behaviours and patient engagement	10/17 Moderate	No significant difference in falls (incidence rates per month: experimental 0.2029; control 0.2098)
van Gaal (2011) [57]	Acute	Multifactorial v Usual Care	Education on falls prevention	Face to face plus handout given by nurses	Not stated	Not reported	2/17 Low	Less falls in experimental group than control group (rate ratio 0.67)

Footnote: Mutifactorial refers to two or more of the following: patient education, falls risk assessments, environmental modifications, devices, personal supervision, multidisciplinary reviews, medication reviews, falls risk communication aids, allied health and nursing input, rounding, staff training