| Study characteristics |
| Methods |
RCT |
| Participants |
Setting: Sydney, Australia
N = 34
Sample: volunteer community‐dwelling men and women recruited by various strategies (47% women)
Age (years): mean 82 (SD 5.9)
Inclusion criteria: aged > 70 years; ≥ 2 falls or an injurious fall in previous year
Exclusion criteria: cognitive impairment; no conversational English; unable to ambulate independently; resident in nursing home or hostel; unstable or terminal illness that would preclude planned exercises; neurological conditions, e.g. Parkinson's disease |
| Interventions |
1. LiFE (Lifestyle approach to reducing Falls through Exercise) programme (progressive balance and strength training embedded in daily life activities). Taught in 5 home visits + 2 booster visits over 3 months + 2 phone calls. Included evaluation of functional balance and strength, profile of current activities, taught LiFE principles and given safety advice relating to activities, planning of activities, and goal setting.
2. Control: no intervention |
| Outcomes |
1. Rate of falls
2. Number of people falling
Other outcomes reported but not included in this review |
| Duration of the study |
6 months |
| Notes |
|
| Risk of bias |
| Bias |
Authors' judgement |
Support for judgement |
| Random sequence generation (selection bias) |
Low risk |
Quote: "Randomisation was conducted … using a random numbers table" |
| Allocation concealment (selection bias) |
Low risk |
Quote: "Randomisation was conducted by an investigator not involved in assessment or intervention …" "Once baseline assessments were completed by the research assistant (RA), participants were then allocated in order of completion from the generated lists by the blinded investigator." |
| Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias)
All outcomes |
Unclear risk |
Participants and personnel carrying out the intervention were not blind to allocated groups. Unclear whether this could result in performance bias. |
| Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias)
Falls and fallers |
Unclear risk |
Quote: "An RA who was not involved in the intervention and masked to the group allocation conducted all assessments. Falls surveillance was by daily calendar, which participants mailed monthly, using pre‐addressed envelopes to the RA. An investigator telephoned any participant who failed to return the calendar or who reported a fall." Unclear whether the investigator carrying out the telephone calls was blind to group allocation. |
| Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias)
Falls |
Unclear risk |
SeeAppendix 3 for method of assessment. Insufficient information to permit judgement. |
| Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias)
Fallers |
Low risk |
SeeAppendix 3 for method of assessment |
| Risk of bias in recall of falls |
Low risk |
Quote: "Falls surveillance was by daily calendar, which participants mailed monthly, using pre‐addressed envelopes …" |
