| Study characteristics |
| Methods |
RCT (cluster‐randomised by general practice) |
| Participants |
Setting: general practices in Hunter Region, New South Wales, Australia
N = 849 participants (17 practices, 23 GPs)
Sample: attending general practices and invited by practice staff (59% women)
Age (years): ≥ 65
Inclusion criteria: GPs: based at their current practice for at least 12 months; working ≥ 10 hours per wk; member of a randomly selected network of practices. Patients: aged ≥ 65; community‐dwelling
Exclusion criterion: confused patients not accompanied by a caregiver |
| Interventions |
1. GPs: education (academic detailing (2 visits from pharmacist), provision of prescribing information and feedback); completion of medication review checklist; financial rewards. Patients: completed medication risk assessment form
2. Control: GPs: no academic detailing but received feedback on number of medication reviews completed and medication risk factors. Patients: completed medication risk assessment form but not passed on to GP for action |
| Outcomes |
1. Number of people falling |
| Duration of the study |
1 year |
| Notes |
|
| Risk of bias |
| Bias |
Authors' judgement |
Support for judgement |
| Random sequence generation (selection bias) |
Low risk |
Assignment undertaken "using computer‐generated random number allocation in SAS software" |
| Allocation concealment (selection bias) |
Low risk |
Randomisation carried out by off‐site statistician |
| Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias)
All outcomes |
Unclear risk |
Quote: "The sequence was not concealed from ... the doctors who needed to conduct the intervention. However, participants, practice staff, data collectors, outcome assessors and data managers were unaware of the treatment allocation." |
| Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias)
Falls and fallers |
Low risk |
Falls reported by participants who were unaware of their group allocation. Data collectors also blind to allocation. |
| Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias)
Fallers |
High risk |
SeeAppendix 3 for method of assessment |
| Risk of bias in recall of falls |
High risk |
Retrospective interval recall. Falls ascertained by phone at 4 and 12 months. |
