2
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Effectiveness of fall prevention interventions in residential aged care and community settings: an umbrella review

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Introduction

          Preventing falls is a priority for aged care providers. Research to date has focused on fall prevention strategies in single settings (e.g., residential aged care (RAC) or community settings). However, some aged care providers deliver care, including fall prevention interventions, across RAC and community settings. We conducted an umbrella review to identify what type of fall prevention interventions had the greatest impact on falls outcomes in RAC and community settings.

          Methods

          Five databases were searched for systematic reviews of falls prevention randomised control trials in older adults living in the community or RAC. Data extracted included systematic review methods, population characteristics, intervention characteristics, setting details (RAC or community), and fall-related outcomes (falls, people who have had a fall, fall-related hospitalisations, and fall-related fractures). Review quality was appraised using the Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews-2 tool.

          Results

          One-hundred and six systematic reviews were included; 63 and 19 of these stratified results by community and RAC settings respectively, the remainder looked at both settings. The most common intervention types discussed in reviews included ‘exercise’ (61%, n = 65), ‘multifactorial’ (two or more intervention types delivered together) (26%, n = 28), and ‘vitamin D’ (18%, n = 19). In RAC and community settings, ‘exercise’ interventions demonstrated the most consistent reduction in falls and people who have had a fall compared to other intervention types. ‘Multifactorial’ interventions were also beneficial in both settings however demonstrated more consistent reduction in falls and people who fall in RAC settings compared to community settings. ‘Vitamin D’ interventions may be beneficial in community-dwelling populations but not in RAC settings. It was not possible to stratify fall-related hospitalisation and fall-related fracture outcomes by setting due to limited number of RAC-specific reviews ( n = 3 and 0 respectively).

          Conclusion

          ‘Exercise’ interventions may be the most appropriate falls prevention intervention for older adults in RAC and community settings as it is beneficial for multiple fall-related outcomes (falls, fall-related fractures, and people who have had a fall). Augmenting ‘exercise’ interventions to become ‘multifactorial’ interventions may also improve the incidence of falls in both settings.

          Supplementary Information

          The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12877-023-04624-4.

          Related collections

          Most cited references50

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: found
          Is Open Access

          The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews

          The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement, published in 2009, was designed to help systematic reviewers transparently report why the review was done, what the authors did, and what they found. Over the past decade, advances in systematic review methodology and terminology have necessitated an update to the guideline. The PRISMA 2020 statement replaces the 2009 statement and includes new reporting guidance that reflects advances in methods to identify, select, appraise, and synthesise studies. The structure and presentation of the items have been modified to facilitate implementation. In this article, we present the PRISMA 2020 27-item checklist, an expanded checklist that details reporting recommendations for each item, the PRISMA 2020 abstract checklist, and the revised flow diagrams for original and updated reviews.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: found
            Is Open Access

            Rayyan—a web and mobile app for systematic reviews

            Background Synthesis of multiple randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in a systematic review can summarize the effects of individual outcomes and provide numerical answers about the effectiveness of interventions. Filtering of searches is time consuming, and no single method fulfills the principal requirements of speed with accuracy. Automation of systematic reviews is driven by a necessity to expedite the availability of current best evidence for policy and clinical decision-making. We developed Rayyan (http://rayyan.qcri.org), a free web and mobile app, that helps expedite the initial screening of abstracts and titles using a process of semi-automation while incorporating a high level of usability. For the beta testing phase, we used two published Cochrane reviews in which included studies had been selected manually. Their searches, with 1030 records and 273 records, were uploaded to Rayyan. Different features of Rayyan were tested using these two reviews. We also conducted a survey of Rayyan’s users and collected feedback through a built-in feature. Results Pilot testing of Rayyan focused on usability, accuracy against manual methods, and the added value of the prediction feature. The “taster” review (273 records) allowed a quick overview of Rayyan for early comments on usability. The second review (1030 records) required several iterations to identify the previously identified 11 trials. The “suggestions” and “hints,” based on the “prediction model,” appeared as testing progressed beyond five included studies. Post rollout user experiences and a reflexive response by the developers enabled real-time modifications and improvements. The survey respondents reported 40% average time savings when using Rayyan compared to others tools, with 34% of the respondents reporting more than 50% time savings. In addition, around 75% of the respondents mentioned that screening and labeling studies as well as collaborating on reviews to be the two most important features of Rayyan. As of November 2016, Rayyan users exceed 2000 from over 60 countries conducting hundreds of reviews totaling more than 1.6M citations. Feedback from users, obtained mostly through the app web site and a recent survey, has highlighted the ease in exploration of searches, the time saved, and simplicity in sharing and comparing include-exclude decisions. The strongest features of the app, identified and reported in user feedback, were its ability to help in screening and collaboration as well as the time savings it affords to users. Conclusions Rayyan is responsive and intuitive in use with significant potential to lighten the load of reviewers.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: found
              Is Open Access

              AMSTAR 2: a critical appraisal tool for systematic reviews that include randomised or non-randomised studies of healthcare interventions, or both

              The number of published systematic reviews of studies of healthcare interventions has increased rapidly and these are used extensively for clinical and policy decisions. Systematic reviews are subject to a range of biases and increasingly include non-randomised studies of interventions. It is important that users can distinguish high quality reviews. Many instruments have been designed to evaluate different aspects of reviews, but there are few comprehensive critical appraisal instruments. AMSTAR was developed to evaluate systematic reviews of randomised trials. In this paper, we report on the updating of AMSTAR and its adaptation to enable more detailed assessment of systematic reviews that include randomised or non-randomised studies of healthcare interventions, or both. With moves to base more decisions on real world observational evidence we believe that AMSTAR 2 will assist decision makers in the identification of high quality systematic reviews, including those based on non-randomised studies of healthcare interventions.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                Isabelle.meulenbroeks@mq.edu.au
                Journal
                BMC Geriatr
                BMC Geriatr
                BMC Geriatrics
                BioMed Central (London )
                1471-2318
                19 January 2024
                19 January 2024
                2024
                : 24
                : 75
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Australian Institute of Health Innovation, Macquarie University, ( https://ror.org/01sf06y89) Level 6, 75 Talavera Rd North Ryde, Sydney, NSW 2113 Australia
                [2 ]National Drug & Alcohol Research Centre, University of New South Wales, ( https://ror.org/03r8z3t63) Sydney, NSW Australia
                [3 ]St Vincent’s Clinical School, UNSW Medicine, UNSW Sydney, ( https://ror.org/03r8z3t63) Sydney, NSW Australia
                [4 ]GRID grid.1005.4, ISNI 0000 0004 4902 0432, Black Dog Institute, , University of New South Wales, ; Sydney, NSW Australia
                [5 ]School of Public Health, University of Technology Sydney, ( https://ror.org/03f0f6041) Sydney, NSW Australia
                Article
                4624
                10.1186/s12877-023-04624-4
                10799511
                38243175
                f17af0ce-4479-4d23-aa08-feaa4c9ca8ca
                © The Author(s) 2024

                Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver ( http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

                History
                : 8 October 2023
                : 18 December 2023
                Categories
                Research
                Custom metadata
                © BioMed Central Ltd., part of Springer Nature 2024

                Geriatric medicine
                falls,aged care,community,vitamin d,multifactorial,exercise,older adults
                Geriatric medicine
                falls, aged care, community, vitamin d, multifactorial, exercise, older adults

                Comments

                Comment on this article