This Article
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Submit a response
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when eLetters are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Right arrow Citation Map
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Hogan, D. B.
Right arrow Articles by Metcalf, B.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Hogan, D. B.
Right arrow Articles by Metcalf, B.
Related Collections
Right arrow Statistics & Research Methods
Right arrow Doctor-doctor communication
Right arrow Community Medicine
Right arrow Falls
CMAJ • September 4, 2001; 165 (5)
© 2001 Canadian Medical Association or its licensors

Research
Recherche

A randomized controlled trial of a community-based consultation service to prevent falls

David B. Hogan*{dagger}{ddagger}, Frank A. MacDonald*, Jennifer Betts*, Sheila Bricker, Erika M. Ebly{dagger}, Barb Delarue*, Tak S. Fung§, Cathy Harbidge, Maggie Hunter*, Colleen J. Maxwell{ddagger} and Barb Metcalf*

From *Specialized Geriatric Services, Calgary Regional Health Authority, Calgary; the Departments of {dagger}Medicine and {ddagger}Community Health Sciences, University of Calgary, Calgary; and the §University Computing Services, University of Calgary, Calgary, Alta.

Correspondence to: Dr. David B. Hogan, Health Sciences Centre, 3330 Hospital Dr. NW, Calgary AB T2N 4N1; fax 403 283-6151; dhogan{at}ucalgary.ca

Background: Multifaceted programs that combine assessment with interventions have been shown to reduce subsequent falls in some clinical trials. We tested this approach to see whether it would be effective if offered as a consultation service using existing health care resources.

Methods: The subjects of this randomized controlled trial had to be aged 65 years or more and had to have fallen within the previous 3 months. They were randomly assigned to receive either usual care or the intervention, which consisted of in-home assessment in conjunction with the development of an individualized treatment plan, including an exercise program for those deemed likely to benefit. The primary outcomes were the proportion of participants who fell and the rate of falling during the following year. Visits to the emergency department and admissions to hospital were secondary outcomes.

Results: One hundred and sixty-three subjects were randomly assigned to either the control or the intervention group, and 152 provided data about their falls. There were no significant differences between the control and intervention groups in the cumulative number of falls (311 v. 241, p = 0.34), having one or more falls (79.2% v. 72.0%, p = 0.30) or in the mean number of falls (4.0 v. 3.2, p = 0.43). Analysis of secondary outcomes (health care use) also showed no significant differences between the intervention group and the control group. In the Cox regression analysis, there was no significant difference between the groups in the proportion of subjects having one or more falls (p = 0.55), but there was a significantly (p < 0.001) longer time between falls in the intervention group. In a post hoc subgroup analysis, subjects with more than 2 falls in the 3 months preceding study entry who had been assigned to the intervention group were less likely to fall (p = 0.046) and had a significantly longer time between falls (p < 0.001), when compared with the group who received usual care.

Interpretation: The intervention did not decrease significantly the cumulative number of falls, the likelihood of participants having at least one fall over the next year or the mean number of falls. It did increase significantly the time between falls in a survival analysis when age, sex and history of falling were used as covariates.




This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 J Aging HealthHome page
E. Th. Petridou, E. G. Manti, A. G. Ntinapogias, E. Negri, and K. Szczerbinska
What Works Better for Community-Dwelling Older People at Risk to Fall?: A Meta-Analysis of Multifactorial Versus Physical Exercise-Alone Interventions
J Aging Health, August 1, 2009; 21(5): 713 - 729.
[Abstract] [PDF]

Home page
 Age AgeingHome page
M. G. Donaldson, B. Sobolev, W. L. Cook, P. A. Janssen, and K. M. Khan
Analysis of recurrent events: a systematic review of randomised controlled trials of interventions to prevent falls
Age Ageing, March 1, 2009; 38(2): 151 - 155.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Age AgeingHome page
A. J. Campbell and M. C. Robertson
Rethinking individual and community fall prevention strategies: a meta-regression comparing single and multifactorial interventions
Age Ageing, November 1, 2007; 36(6): 656 - 662.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Eur J Public HealthHome page
N. M. Sjosten, M. Salonoja, M. Piirtola, T. J. Vahlberg, R. Isoaho, H. K. Hyttinen, P. T. Aarnio, and S.-L. Kivela
A multifactorial fall prevention programme in the community-dwelling aged: predictors of adherence
Eur J Public Health, October 1, 2007; 17(5): 464 - 470.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 CMAJHome page
P. Kannus and K. M. Khan
Prevention of falls and subsequent injuries in elderly people: a long way to go in both research and practice
Can. Med. Assoc. J., September 1, 2001; 165(5): 587 - 588.
[Full Text] [PDF]