Ward 2004.

Study characteristics
Methods	RCT
Participants	Setting: home, UK N = 53 (PD subgroup) Sample: recruited from General Practices based within the city of Nottingham boundaries (45% women, all participants) Age (years): median (range) education group 63 (29‐89) control group 65 (22‐86), all participants Inclusion criteria: aged over 15 years with one of the following possible recorded diagnoses: PD and other causes of progressive parkinsonism, multiple sclerosis, motor neurone disease, Huntington's disease and other degenerative disorders affecting the central nervous system, muscles or peripheral nerves (note ‐ only the PD subgroup was included in this review) Exclusion criteria: dementing disorders such as Alzheimer's Disease; clinical features appeared incompatible with the recorded diagnosis; neurological complications of primarily non‐neurological conditions such as diabetes mellitus; additional causes of severe disability Disease severity at baseline: not reported
Interventions	Health education, including falls prevention 1. Education: education visit from the research occupational therapist (OT) to provide personalized advice and information based on a multidisciplinary expert panel discussion, a tailored version of the standard information package, and a leaflet offering information about the participant's condition and about self‐help organisations. Plus, an action plan most likely to promote each individual's physical, social and psychological well‐being, taking into account their risk of falls. Plus, a single follow‐through phone call from the OT to confirm and reinforce the educational content of the visit 2. Control: information visit from the OT to provide standardised printed information package on generic services and condition‐specific self‐help organisations. Participants raising any specific queries during the information visit were advised to consult routine sources of advice
Outcomes	1. Number of fallers Other outcomes reported but not included in this review
Duration of the study	12 months
Funding source	Department of Health Policy Research Program
Notes	Fall data collected: at baseline and 12‐month follow‐up by two‐monthly phone calls
Risk of bias
Bias	Authors' judgement	Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)	Low risk	A random component in the sequence generation was described. Quote: "Each participant was allocated consecutively to a group by consulting a computer‐generated random number series.”
Allocation concealment (selection bias)	Unclear risk	Insufficient information to permit judgement. Quote: "Following a baseline assessment visit from a trained interviewer with no health or social care qualifications, participants were randomized to either the education group (EG) or the comparison group (CoG)."
Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias) All outcomes	Unclear risk	Participants and intervention (education) delivery personnel not blinded to group allocation but impact of non‐blinding unclear.
Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) Falls and fallers	Unclear risk	Unclear if personnel collecting fall information blinded to group allocation.
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) Fallers	Unclear risk	Data not available to assess.
Selective reporting (reporting bias)	Unclear risk	Insufficient information to permit judgement as unable to find a published protocol or trial registration.
Method of ascertaining falls (recall bias) Falls and fallers	High risk	Ascertainment relied on participant recall at longer intervals than one month during the study. Quote: “...falls reported at two monthly phone calls during 12 months of follow‐up.”