Sydney School of Health Sciences, Faculty of Medicine & Health, The University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia.
Participation, Environment and Performance Laboratory, Program in Occupational Therapy, Washington University, St Louis, MO, USA.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2023 Mar 10;3(3):CD013258. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD013258.pub2.
Falls and fall-related injuries are common. A third of community-dwelling people aged over 65 years fall each year. Falls can have serious consequences including restricting activity or institutionalisation. This review updates the previous evidence for environmental interventions in fall prevention.
To assess the effects (benefits and harms) of environmental interventions (such as fall-hazard reduction, assistive technology, home modifications, and education) for preventing falls in older people living in the community.
We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, other databases, trial registers, and reference lists of systematic reviews to January 2021. We contacted researchers in the field to identify additional studies.
We included randomised controlled trials evaluating the effects of environmental interventions (such as reduction of fall hazards in the home, assistive devices) on falls in community-residing people aged 60 years and over. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. Our primary outcome was rate of falls.
We included 22 studies from 10 countries involving 8463 community-residing older people. Participants were on average 78 years old, and 65% were women. For fall outcomes, five studies had high risk of bias and most studies had unclear risk of bias for one or more risk of bias domains. For other outcomes (e.g. fractures), most studies were at high risk of detection bias. We downgraded the certainty of the evidence for high risk of bias, imprecision, and/or inconsistency. Home fall-hazard reduction (14 studies, 5830 participants) These interventions aim to reduce falls by assessing fall hazards and making environmental safety adaptations (e.g. non-slip strips on steps) or behavioural strategies (e.g. avoiding clutter). Home fall-hazard interventions probably reduce the overall rate of falls by 26% (rate ratio (RaR) 0.74, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.61 to 0.91; 12 studies, 5293 participants; moderate-certainty evidence); based on a control group risk of 1319 falls per 1000 people a year, this is 343 (95% CI 118 to 514) fewer falls. However, these interventions were more effective in people who are selected for higher risk of falling, with a reduction of 38% (RaR 0.62, 95% CI 0.56 to 0.70; 9 studies, 1513 participants; 702 (95% CI 554 to 812) fewer falls based on a control risk of 1847 falls per 1000 people; high-certainty evidence). We found no evidence of a reduction in rate of falls when people were not selected for fall risk (RaR 1.05, 95% CI 0.96 to 1.16; 6 studies, 3780 participants; high-certainty evidence). Findings were similar for the number of people experiencing one or more falls. These interventions probably reduce the overall risk by 11% (risk ratio (RR) 0.89, 95% CI 0.82 to 0.97; 12 studies, 5253 participants; moderate-certainty evidence); based on a risk of 519 per 1000 people per year, this is 57 (95% CI 15 to 93) fewer fallers. However, for people at higher risk of falling, we found a 26% decrease in risk (RR 0.74, 95% CI 0.65 to 0.85; 9 studies, 1473 participants), but no decrease for unselected populations (RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.92 to 1.07; 6 studies, 3780 participants) (high-certainty evidence). These interventions probably make little or no important difference to health-related quality of life (HRQoL) (standardised mean difference 0.09, 95% CI -0.10 to 0.27; 5 studies, 1848 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). They may make little or no difference to the risk of fall-related fractures (RR 1.00, 95% 0.98 to 1.02; 2 studies, 1668 participants), fall-related hospitalisations (RR 0.96, 95% CI 0.87 to 1.06; 3 studies, 325 participants), or in the rate of falls requiring medical attention (RaR 0.91, 95% CI 0.58 to 1.43; 3 studies, 946 participants) (low-certainty evidence). The evidence for number of fallers requiring medical attention was unclear (2 studies, 216 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Two studies reported no adverse events. Assistive technology Vision improvement interventions may make little or no difference to the rate of falls (RaR 1.12, 95% CI 0.84 to 1.50; 3 studies, 1489 participants) or people experiencing one or more falls (RR 1.09, 95% CI 0.79 to 1.50) (low-certainty evidence). We are unsure of the evidence for fall-related fractures (2 studies, 976 participants) and falls requiring medical attention (1 study, 276 participants) because the certainty of the evidence is very low. There may be little or no difference in HRQoL (mean difference 0.40, 95% CI -1.12 to 1.92) or adverse events (falls while switching glasses; RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.98 to 1.02) (1 study, 597 participants; low-certainty evidence). Results for other assistive technology - footwear and foot devices, and self-care and assistive devices (5 studies, 651 participants) - were not pooled due to the diversity of interventions and contexts. Education We are uncertain whether an education intervention to reduce home fall hazards reduces the rate of falls or the number of people experiencing one or more falls (1 study; very low-certainty evidence). These interventions may make little or no difference to the risk of fall-related fractures (RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.96 to 1.08; 1 study, 110 participants; low-certainty evidence). Home modifications We found no trials of home modifications that measured falls as an outcome for task enablement and functional independence.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We found high-certainty evidence that home fall-hazard interventions are effective in reducing the rate of falls and the number of fallers when targeted to people at higher risk of falling, such as having had a fall in the past year and recently hospitalised or needing support with daily activities. There was evidence of no effect when interventions were targeted to people not selected for risk of falling. Further research is needed to examine the impact of intervention components, the effect of awareness raising, and participant-interventionist engagement on decision-making and adherence. Vision improvement interventions may or may not impact the rate of falls. Further research is needed to answer clinical questions such as whether people should be given advice or take additional precautions when changing eye prescriptions, or whether the intervention is more effective when targeting people at higher risk of falls. There was insufficient evidence to determine whether education interventions impact falls.
跌倒和与跌倒相关的伤害很常见。三分之一的 65 岁以上社区居住者每年都会跌倒。跌倒可能会产生严重后果,包括限制活动或住院。本综述更新了之前关于预防老年人跌倒的环境干预的证据。
评估环境干预(如减少跌倒危险、辅助技术、家庭改造和教育)对预防社区居住老年人跌倒的效果(益处和危害)。
我们检索了 CENTRAL、MEDLINE、Embase、其他数据库、试验登记处和系统评价的参考文献列表,检索截止日期为 2021 年 1 月。我们联系了该领域的研究人员以确定其他研究。
我们纳入了评估环境干预(如减少家中跌倒危险、辅助设备)对社区居住 60 岁及以上老年人跌倒影响的随机对照试验。
我们使用了 Cochrane 预期的标准方法学程序。我们的主要结局是跌倒发生率。
我们纳入了来自 10 个国家的 22 项研究,涉及 8463 名社区居住的老年人。参与者的平均年龄为 78 岁,65%为女性。对于跌倒结局,五项研究存在高偏倚风险,大多数研究在一个或多个偏倚领域存在高偏倚风险。对于其他结局(如骨折),大多数研究存在检测偏倚的高风险。我们降低了高偏倚风险、不精确性和/或不一致性的证据的确定性。
家庭跌倒危险减少(14 项研究,5830 名参与者)这些干预旨在通过评估跌倒危险和进行环境安全适应(如在台阶上安装防滑条)或行为策略(如避免杂物)来减少跌倒。
家庭跌倒危险干预可能会降低跌倒的总体发生率 26%(发生率比(RaR)0.74,95%置信区间(CI)0.61 至 0.91;12 项研究,5293 名参与者;中等确定性证据);基于对照组每年每 1000 人 1319 次跌倒的风险,这意味着每年可减少 343 次(95%CI 118 至 514)跌倒。然而,这些干预措施在选择更高跌倒风险的人群中更有效,降低 38%(RaR 0.62,95%CI 0.56 至 0.70;9 项研究,1513 名参与者;基于对照组每年每 1000 人 1847 次跌倒的风险,每年可减少 702 次(95%CI 554 至 812)跌倒;高确定性证据)。我们发现,在没有选择跌倒风险的人群中,跌倒发生率没有降低(RaR 1.05,95%CI 0.96 至 1.16;6 项研究,3780 名参与者;高确定性证据)。对于跌倒人数,结果相似。这些干预措施可能会使跌倒风险降低 11%(风险比(RR)0.89,95%CI 0.82 至 0.97;12 项研究,5253 名参与者;中等确定性证据);基于每年每 1000 人 519 次跌倒的风险,这意味着每年可减少 57 次(95%CI 15 至 93)跌倒。然而,对于有更高跌倒风险的人群,我们发现风险降低了 26%(RR 0.74,95%CI 0.65 至 0.85;9 项研究,1473 名参与者),但在未选择的人群中没有降低(RR 0.99,95%CI 0.92 至 1.07;6 项研究,3780 名参与者)(高确定性证据)。这些干预措施可能对健康相关生活质量(HRQoL)(标准化均数差 0.09,95%CI-0.10 至 0.27;5 项研究,1848 名参与者;中等确定性证据)几乎没有或没有影响。它们可能对跌倒相关骨折(RR 1.00,95% 0.98 至 1.02;2 项研究,1668 名参与者)、跌倒相关住院(RR 0.96,95%CI 0.87 至 1.06;3 项研究,325 名参与者)或跌倒需要医疗照顾的发生率(RaR 0.91,95%CI 0.58 至 1.43;3 项研究,946 名参与者)(低确定性证据)几乎没有或没有影响。跌倒需要医疗照顾的人数的证据尚不清楚(2 项研究,216 名参与者;非常低确定性证据)。两项研究报告没有不良事件。视力改善干预措施可能对跌倒发生率(RaR 1.12,95%CI 0.84 至 1.50;3 项研究,1489 名参与者)或跌倒人数(RR 1.09,95%CI 0.79 至 1.50)(低确定性证据)几乎没有或没有影响。我们对跌倒相关骨折(2 项研究,976 名参与者)和跌倒需要医疗照顾(1 项研究,276 名参与者)的证据不确定,因为证据的确定性非常低。在更换眼镜时可能会有或可能没有跌倒等不良事件(RR 1.00,95%CI 0.98 至 1.02)(1 项研究,597 名参与者;低确定性证据)。其他辅助技术-鞋类和足部设备,以及自我护理和辅助设备(5 项研究,651 名参与者)的结果由于干预措施和环境的多样性而无法进行汇总。
教育我们不确定减少家庭跌倒危险的教育干预是否能降低跌倒率或跌倒人数(1 项研究;非常低确定性证据)。这些干预措施可能对跌倒相关骨折的风险没有影响(RR 1.02,95%CI 0.96 至 1.08;1 项研究,110 名参与者;低确定性证据)。
家庭改造我们没有发现任何测量任务能力和功能独立性的家庭改造试验。
我们发现,当针对有更高跌倒风险的人群(如过去一年跌倒过和最近住院或需要日常活动支持的人群)时,家庭跌倒危险干预措施可有效降低跌倒率和跌倒人数,高确定性证据。当针对没有选择跌倒风险的人群时,没有证据表明干预措施有效。进一步的研究需要检验干预措施的组成部分、意识提高的影响,以及参与者-干预者的参与对决策和依从性的影响。视力改善干预措施可能会或可能不会影响跌倒率。需要进一步的研究来回答临床问题,例如是否应该建议人们改变眼镜处方或采取其他预防措施,或者干预措施是否对有更高跌倒风险的人群更有效。没有足够的证据来确定教育干预是否会影响跌倒。