scholarly journals Evidence-based clinical practice in falls prevention: a randomised controlled trial of a falls prevention service

2003 ◽  
Vol 26 (3) ◽  
pp. 88 ◽  
Author(s):  
Craig Whitehead ◽  
Rachel Wundke ◽  
Maria Crotty ◽  
Paul Finucane
Keyword(s):  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Intervention Group ◽  
Falls Prevention ◽  
Evidence Based ◽  
Patient Centered ◽  
Falls Risk ◽  
High Care ◽  
Prevention Service ◽  
Fall Rates ◽  
Randomised Controlled

Aims:Evidence-based guidelines recommend a range of treatments for falls and injury prevention. We undertook arandomised trial of a falls prevention service to screen for falls risk factors and recommend to GPs an evidenced baseprescription for falls prevention.Methods:All patients who presented with a fall to the Emergency Department at Flinders Medical Centre over a 22-week periodwere considered for the study. We excluded patients with dementia, resident in high care or those transferred to otherhospitals and outside our catchment area. Of those who consented, we randomised patients between usual care or toan intervention consisting of a falls risk assessment and writing of an evidence-based prescription faxed to their GPfor action. Patients were followed for six months and uptake of advice and fall rates were monitored.Results:Four hundred and fifty patients presented with a fall-related attendance and of these 261 patients were eligible forinclusion in the trial. Of these 261 patients, 140 consented and were enrolled in the trial. Over the six monthspatients in the intervention group were more likely to uptake preventative advice (OR=12.3; 95%CI=4.2-35.9).We were unable to show a reduction in falls (OR=1.7; 95%CI=0.7-4.4).Conclusions:A patient centered evidence-based approach is feasible and effective in increasing uptake of falls prevention advice.Long term compliance with advice needs further exploration.

scholarly journals Clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of a multifaceted podiatry intervention for falls prevention in older people: a multicentre cohort randomised controlled trial (the REducing Falls with ORthoses and a Multifaceted podiatry intervention trial)

2017 ◽  
Vol 21 (24) ◽  
pp. 1-198 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sarah Cockayne ◽  
Sara Rodgers ◽  
Lorraine Green ◽  
Caroline Fairhurst ◽  
Joy Adamson ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Usual Care ◽  
Incidence Rate ◽  
Primary Outcome ◽  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Intervention Group ◽  
Clinical Effectiveness ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Falls Prevention ◽  
Randomised Controlled

BackgroundFalls are a serious cause of morbidity and cost to individuals and society. Evidence suggests that foot problems and inappropriate footwear may increase the risk of falling. Podiatric interventions could help reduce falls; however, there is limited evidence regarding their clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness.ObjectivesTo determine the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of a multifaceted podiatry intervention for preventing falls in community-dwelling older people at risk of falling, relative to usual care.DesignA pragmatic, multicentred, cohort randomised controlled trial with an economic evaluation and qualitative study.SettingNine NHS trusts in the UK and one site in Ireland.ParticipantsIn total, 1010 participants aged ≥ 65 years were randomised (intervention,n = 493; usual care,n = 517) via a secure, remote service. Blinding was not possible.InterventionsAll participants received a falls prevention leaflet and routine care from their podiatrist and general practitioner. The intervention also consisted of footwear advice, footwear provision if required, foot orthoses and foot- and ankle-strengthening exercises.Main outcome measuresThe primary outcome was the incidence rate of falls per participant in the 12 months following randomisation. The secondary outcomes included the proportion of fallers and multiple fallers, time to first fall, fear of falling, fracture rate, health-related quality of life (HRQoL) and cost-effectiveness.ResultsThe primary analysis consisted of 484 (98.2%) intervention and 507 (98.1%) usual-care participants. There was a non-statistically significant reduction in the incidence rate of falls in the intervention group [adjusted incidence rate ratio 0.88, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.73 to 1.05;p = 0.16]. The proportion of participants experiencing a fall was lower (50% vs. 55%, adjusted odds ratio 0.78, 95% CI 0.60 to 1.00;p = 0.05). No differences were observed in key secondary outcomes. No serious, unexpected and related adverse events were reported. The intervention costs £252.17 more per participant (95% CI –£69.48 to £589.38) than usual care, was marginally more beneficial in terms of HRQoL measured via the EuroQoL-5 Dimensions [mean quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) difference 0.0129, 95% CI –0.0050 to 0.0314 QALYs] and had a 65% probability of being cost-effective at the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence threshold of £30,000 per QALY gained. The intervention was generally acceptable to podiatrists and trial participants.LimitationsOwing to the difficulty in calculating a sample size for a count outcome, the sample size was based on detecting a difference in the proportion of participants experiencing at least one fall, and not the primary outcome. We are therefore unable to confirm if the trial was sufficiently powered for the primary outcome. The findings are not generalisable to patients who are not receiving podiatry care.ConclusionsThe intervention was safe and potentially effective. Although the primary outcome measure did not reach significance, a lower fall rate was observed in the intervention group. The reduction in the proportion of older adults who experienced a fall was of borderline statistical significance. The economic evaluation suggests that the intervention could be cost-effective.Future workFurther research could examine whether or not the intervention could be delivered in group sessions, by physiotherapists, or in high-risk patients.Trial registrationCurrent Controlled Trials ISRCTN68240461.FundingThis project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full inHealth Technology Assessment; Vol. 21, No. 24. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

scholarly journals Lack of effects of evidence-based, individualised counselling on medication use in insured patients with mild hypertension in China: a randomised controlled trial

2019 ◽  
Vol 25 (3) ◽  
pp. 102-108
Author(s):  
Mengyang Di ◽  
Chen Mao ◽  
Zuyao Yang ◽  
Hong Ding ◽  
Qu Liu ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Mild Hypertension ◽  
Antihypertensive Drugs ◽  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Intervention Group ◽  
Medication Use ◽  
Control Group ◽  
Evidence Based ◽  
Randomised Controlled ◽  
Insured Patients

ObjectiveTo evaluate whether evidence-based, individualised (EBI) counselling regarding hypertension and the treatment would affect medication use in insured patients with mild hypertension in China.MethodsWe conducted a parallel-group, randomised controlled trial in two primary care centres in Shenzhen, a metropolitan city in China. Patients with mild primary hypertension, 10-year risk of cardiovascular diseases (CVDs) lower than 20% and no history of CVDs were recruited and randomly allocated to two groups. EBI plus general counselling was provided to the intervention group and general counselling alone to the control group. EBI counselling included information on the 10-year CVD risk and treatment benefit in terms of absolute risk reduction estimated for each individual and information on average side effects and costs of antihypertensive drugs. The outcomes included use of antihypertensive drugs and adherence to the treatment at 6-month follow-up, with the former being primary outcome.ResultsTwo hundred and ten patients were recruited, with 103 and 107 allocated to the intervention and control groups, respectively. At baseline, 62.4% of the patients were taking antihypertensive drugs that were all covered by health insurance. At the end of 6-month follow-up, there was no statistically significant difference in the rate of medication use between the intervention group and the control group (65.0% vs 57.9%; OR=1.35, 95% CI: 0.77 to 2.36). The difference in adherence rate between the two groups was not statistically significant either (43.7% vs 40.2%; OR=1.15, 95% CI 0.67 to 2.00]). The results were robust in sensitivity analyses that used different cutoffs to define the two outcomes.ConclusionsThe EBI counselling by health educators other than the caring physicians had little impact on treatment choices and drug-taking behaviours in insured patients with mild primary hypertension in this study. It remains unclear whether EBI counselling would make a difference in uninsured patients, especially when conducted by the caring physicians.Trial registration numberChiCTR-TRC-14004169.

scholarly journals Expert-based medication reviews to reduce polypharmacy in older patients in primary care: a northern-Italian cluster-randomised controlled trial

2021 ◽  
Vol 21 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Angelika Mahlknecht ◽  
Christian J. Wiedermann ◽  
Marco Sandri ◽  
Adolf Engl ◽  
Martina Valentini ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Older Patients ◽  
Primary Outcome ◽  
Hospital Admissions ◽  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Intervention Group ◽  
Cluster Randomised Controlled Trial ◽  
Control Group ◽  
Evidence Based ◽  
Cluster Randomised ◽  
Randomised Controlled

Abstract Background Evidence regarding clinically relevant effects of interventions aiming at reducing polypharmacy is weak, especially for the primary care setting. This study was initiated with the objective to achieve clinical benefits for older patients (aged 75+) by means of evidence-based reduction of polypharmacy (defined as ≥8 prescribed drugs) and inappropriate prescribing in general practice. Methods The cluster-randomised controlled trial involved general practitioners and patients in a northern-Italian region. The intervention consisted of a review of patient’s medication regimens by three experts who gave specific recommendations for drug discontinuation. Main outcome measures were non-elective hospital admissions or death within 24 months (composite primary endpoint). Secondary outcomes were drug numbers, hospital admissions, mortality, falls, fractures, quality of life, affective status, cognitive function. Results Twenty-two GPs/307 patients participated in the intervention group, 21 GPs/272 patients in the control group. One hundred twenty-five patients (40.7%) experienced the primary outcome in the intervention group, 87 patients (32.0%) in the control group. The adjusted rates of occurrence of the primary outcome did not differ significantly between the study groups (intention-to-treat analysis: adjusted odds ratio 1.46, 95%CI 0.99–2.18, p = 0.06; per-protocol analysis: adjusted OR 1.33, 95%CI 0.87–2.04, p = 0.2). Hospitalisations as single endpoint occurred more frequently in the intervention group according to the unadjusted analysis (OR 1.61, 95%CI 1.03–2.51, p = 0.04) but not in the adjusted analysis (OR 1.39, 95%CI 0.95–2.03, p = 0.09). Falls occurred less frequently in the intervention group (adjusted OR 0.55, 95%CI 0.31–0.98; p = 0.04). No significant differences were found regarding the other outcomes. Definitive discontinuation was obtained for 67 (16.0%) of 419 drugs rated as inappropriate. About 6% of the prescribed drugs were PIMs. Conclusions No conclusive effects were found regarding mortality and non-elective hospitalisations as composite respectively single endpoints. Falls were significantly reduced in the intervention group, although definitive discontinuation was achieved for only one out of six inappropriate drugs. These results indicate that (1) even a modest reduction of inappropriate medications may entail positive clinical effects, and that (2) focusing on evidence-based new drug prescriptions and prevention of polypharmacy may be more effective than deprescribing. Trial registration Current Controlled Trials (ID ISRCTN: 38449870), date: 11/09/2013.

scholarly journals Training general practitioners to improve evidence-based drug treatment of patients with heart failure: a cluster randomised controlled trial

2020 ◽  
Vol 28 (11) ◽  
pp. 604-612
Author(s):  
M. J. M. Valk ◽  
A. W. Hoes ◽  
A. Mosterd ◽  
M. A. Landman ◽  
N. P. A. Zuithoff ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Heart Failure ◽  
Randomised Controlled Trial ◽  
Drug Treatment ◽  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Intervention Group ◽  
Training Session ◽  
Cluster Randomised Controlled Trial ◽  
Evidence Based ◽  
Cluster Randomised ◽  
Randomised Controlled

Abstract Aims To assess whether a single training session for general practitioners (GPs) improves the evidence-based drug treatment of heart failure (HF) patients, especially of those with HF with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). Methods and results A cluster randomised controlled trial was performed for which patients with established HF were eligible. Primary care practices (PCPs) were randomised to care-as-usual or to the intervention group in which GPs received a half-day training session on HF management. Changes in HF medication, health status, hospitalisation and survival were compared between the two groups. Fifteen PCPs with 200 HF patients were randomised to the intervention group and 15 PCPs with 198 HF patients to the control group. Mean age was 76.9 (SD 10.8) years; 52.5% were female. On average, the patients had been diagnosed with HF 3.0 (SD 3.0) years previously. In total, 204 had HFrEF and 194 HF with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF). In participants with HFrEF, the use of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors/angiotensin receptor blockers decreased in 6 months in both groups [5.2%; (95% confidence interval (CI) 2.0–10.0)] and 5.6% (95% CI 2.8–13.4)], respectively [baseline-corrected odds ratio (OR) 1.07 (95% CI 0.55–2.08)], while beta-blocker use increased in both groups by 5.2% (95% CI 2.0–10.0) and 1.1% (95% CI 0.2–6.3), respectively [baseline-corrected OR 0.82 (95% CI 0.42–1.61)]. For health status, hospitalisations or survival after 12–28 months there were no significant differences between the two groups, also not when separately analysed for HFrEF and HFpEF. Conclusion A half-day training session for GPs does not improve drug treatment of HF in patients with established HF.

scholarly journals Effectiveness of targeted falls prevention programme in subacute hospital setting: randomised controlled trial

BMJ ◽  
2004 ◽  
Vol 328 (7441) ◽  
pp. 676 ◽  
Author(s):  
Terry P Haines ◽  
Kim L Bennell ◽  
Richard H Osborne ◽  
Keith D Hill
Keyword(s):  
Randomised Controlled Trial ◽  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Intervention Group ◽  
Hospital Setting ◽  
Falls Prevention ◽  
Prevention Programme ◽  
Rank Test ◽  
Log Rank Test ◽  
Randomised Controlled ◽  
Multiple Intervention

AbstractObjective To assess the effectiveness of a targeted, multiple intervention falls prevention programme in reducing falls and injuries related to falls in a subacute hospital.Design Randomised controlled trial of a targeted multiple intervention programme implemented in addition to usual care compared with usual care alone.Setting Three subacute wards in a metropolitan hospital specialising in rehabilitation and care of elderly patients.Participants 626 men and women aged 38 to 99 years (average 80 years) were recruited from consecutive admissions to subacute hospital wards.Intervention Falls risk alert card with information brochure, exercise programme, education programme, and hip protectors.Main outcome measures Incidence rate of falls, injuries related to falls, and proportion of participants who experienced one or more falls during their stay in hospital.Results Participants in the intervention group (n = 310) experienced 30% fewer falls than participants in the control group (n = 316). This difference was significant (Peto log rank test P = 0.045) and was most obvious after 45 days of observation. In the intervention group there was a trend for a reduction in the proportion of participants who experienced falls (relative risk 0.78, 95% confidence interval 0.56 to 1.06) and 28% fewer falls resulted in injury (log rank test P = 0.20).Conclusions A targeted multiple intervention falls prevention programme reduces the incidence of falls in the subacute hospital setting.

A patient-centered mobile intervention to promote self-management and improve patient outcomes in chronic heart failure: The ManageHF4Life trial (Preprint)

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michael P. Dorsch ◽  
Karen B. Farris ◽  
Brigid E. Rowell ◽  
Scott L. Hummel ◽  
Todd M. Koelling
Keyword(s):  
Heart Failure ◽  
Mobile Application ◽  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Intervention Group ◽  
Self Care ◽  
Self Management ◽  
Control Group ◽  
Patient Centered ◽  
Self Monitoring ◽  
Heart Failure Questionnaire

BACKGROUND Successful management of heart failure (HF) involves guideline based medical therapy as well as self-care behavior. As a result, the management of HF is moving toward a proactive real-time technological model of assisting patients with monitoring and self-management. OBJECTIVE Evaluate the effectiveness of a mobile application intervention that enhances self-monitoring on health-related quality of life, self-management, and reduces HF readmissions. METHODS A single-center randomized controlled trial was performed. Patients greater than 45 years of age and admitted for acute decompensated HF or recently discharged in the past 4 weeks were included. The intervention group used a mobile application (App). The intervention prompted daily self-monitoring and promoted self-management. The control group (No App) received usual care. The primary outcome was the change in Minnesota Living with Heart Failure Questionnaire (MLHFQ) from baseline to 6 and 12 weeks. Secondary outcomes were the Self-Care Heart Failure Index (SCHFI) questionnaire and recurrent HF admissions. RESULTS Eighty-three patients were enrolled and completed all baseline assessments. Baseline characteristics were similar between groups with the exception of HF etiology. The App group had a reduced MLHFQ at 6 weeks (37.5 ± 3.5 vs. 48.2 ± 3.7, P=0.039) but not at 12 weeks (44.2 ± 4 vs. 45.9 ± 4, P=0.778) compared to No App. There was no effect of the App on the SCHFI at 6 or 12 weeks. The time to first HF admission was not statistically different between the App versus No App groups (HR 0.89, 95% CI 0.39-2.02, P=0.781) over 12 weeks. CONCLUSIONS The mobile application intervention improved MLHFQ at 6 weeks, but did not sustain its effects at 12 weeks. No effect was seen on HF self-care. Further research is needed to enhance engagement in the application for a longer period of time and to determine if the application can reduce HF admissions in a larger study. CLINICALTRIAL NCT03149510

scholarly journals Can an online exercise prescription tool improve adherence to home exercise programmes in children with cerebral palsy and other neurodevelopmental disabilities? A randomised controlled trial

BMJ Open ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 10 (12) ◽  
pp. e040108
Author(s):  
Rowan W Johnson ◽  
Sian A Williams ◽  
Daniel F Gucciardi ◽  
Natasha Bear ◽  
Noula Gibson
Keyword(s):  
Exercise Prescription ◽  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Intervention Group ◽  
Exercise Programme ◽  
Home Exercise ◽  
Control Group ◽  
Neurodevelopmental Disabilities ◽  
Home Exercise Programme ◽  
Exercise Programmes ◽  
Randomised Controlled

ObjectiveDetermine the adherence to and effectiveness of an 8-week home exercise programme for children with disabilities delivered using Physitrack, an online exercise prescription tool, compared with traditional paper-based methods.DesignSingle-blinded, parallel-groups, randomised controlled trial (RCT).SettingIntervention took place in participants’ homes in Western Australia.ParticipantsChildren aged 6 to 17 years, with neurodevelopmental disabilities including cerebral palsy (CP), receiving community therapy services.InterventionAll participants completed an individualised home exercise programme, which was delivered to the intervention group using Physitrack and conventional paper-based methods for the control group.Primary outcome measuresAdherence to exercise programme, goal achievement and exercise performance.Secondary outcome measuresEnjoyment, confidence and usability of Physitrack.ResultsFifty-four participants with CP (n=37) or other neurodevelopmental disabilities (n=17) were recruited. Fifty-three were randomised after one early withdrawal. Forty-six completed the 8-week programme, with 24 in the intervention group and 22 in the control group. There was no difference between the two groups for percentage of exercises completed (intervention (n=22): 62.8% (SD 27.7), control (n=22): 55.8% (SD 19.4), between group mean difference −7.0% (95% CI: −21.6 to 7.5, p=0.34)). Both groups showed significant improvement in their self-rated performance of individualised goal activities, however there was no statistically significant difference between groups for goal achievement, quality of exercise performance, enjoyment, confidence or preferred method of delivery. There were no adverse events.ConclusionPhysitrack provides a therapist with a new means of providing an exercise programme with online tools such as exercise videos, but our preliminary findings indicate that it may be no better than a traditional paper-based method for improving exercise adherence or the other outcomes measured. Exercise programmes remain an intervention supported by evidence, but a larger RCT is required to fully evaluate online delivery methods.Trial registration detailsAustralian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry; ACTRN12616000743460.

scholarly journals Efficacy of a Multi-Component m-Health Diet, Physical Activity, and Sleep Intervention on Dietary Intake in Adults with Overweight and Obesity: A Randomised Controlled Trial

Nutrients ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 13 (7) ◽  
pp. 2468
Author(s):  
Sasha Fenton ◽  
Tracy L. Burrows ◽  
Clare E. Collins ◽  
Anna T. Rayward ◽  
Beatrice Murawski ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Physical Activity ◽  
Weight Loss ◽  
Randomised Controlled Trial ◽  
Dietary Intake ◽  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Intervention Group ◽  
Weight Loss Intervention ◽  
Traditional Group ◽  
Traditional Diet ◽  
Randomised Controlled

This three-arm randomised controlled trial evaluated whether (1) a multi-component weight loss intervention targeting diet, physical activity (PA), and sleep was effective at improving dietary intake over six months and 12 months, compared with a control, and (2) the enhanced diet, PA, and sleep intervention was more effective at improving dietary intake than the traditional diet and PA intervention. A total of 116 adults (70% female, 44.5 years, BMI 31.7 kg/m2) were randomised to either traditional diet and PA intervention; enhanced diet, PA, and sleep intervention; or wait-list control. To examine between-group differences, intervention groups were pooled and compared with the control. Then, the two intervention groups were compared. At six months, the pooled intervention group consumed 1011 fewer kilojoules/day (95% CI −1922, −101), less sodium (−313.2 mg/day; 95% CI −591.3, −35.0), and higher %EI from fruit (+2.1%EI; 95% CI 0.1, 4.1) than the controls. There were no differences in intake between the enhanced and traditional groups at six months. At 12 months, the pooled intervention and control groups reported no significant differences. However, compared to the traditional group, the enhanced reported higher %EI from nutrient-dense foods (+7.4%EI; 95% CI 1.3, 13.5) and protein (+2.4%EI; 95% CI 0.1, 4.6), and reduced %EI from fried/takeaway foods (−3.6%EI; 95% CI −6.5, −0.7), baked sweet products (−2.0%EI; 95% CI −3.6, −0.4), and packaged snacks (−1.1%EI; 95% CI −2.2, −0.3). This weight loss intervention reduced total energy and sodium intakes as well as increased fruit intake in adults at six months. The enhanced intervention group reported improved dietary intake relative to the traditional group at 12 months.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document