This page is alzhub.org's plain-English summary of a published study, not the paper itself. It is generated from the record we hold for this study, sourced and linked below — check the original for the full text and methods.

63/100

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 63 out of 100. Clinical safety

Topic: Risk, prevention and care in population studies

Critical outcomes were rate of falls (number of falls per unit time) and number of fallers (risk of experiencing one or more falls). Important outcomes were risk of fracture, adverse events, and economic outcomes. RISK OF BIAS: We assessed risk of bias in the included studies against nine items (seven items from Cochrane's RoB 1 tool, plus method of ascertaining falls and baseline imbalance). Overall, multifactorial interventions (i.e. two or more categories of intervention delivered based on individual risk profile) probably have little or no effect on the rate of falls (RaR 0.87, 95% CI 0.68 to 1.12; I² = 89%; 12 trials; 4843 participants; moderate-certainty evidence), but probably reduce the risk of falling (RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.83 to 1.00; I² = 19%; 11 trials; 4557 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Multifactorial interventions may be cost-effective in reducing falls (GBP 20,889 per quality-adjusted life year, UK health and social care perspective; 1 trial; 1657 participants; low-certainty evidence). A subgroup analysis informed by qualitative comparative analysis indicated that multifactorial interventions delivered in a tailored manner according to resident individual circumstances (e.g. living with dementia) with facility staff engagement have greater effects (P < 0.001) than those not delivered in this manner, and probably result in a large reduction in rate of falls (RaR 0.61, 95% CI 0.54 to 0.69; I² = 0%; 7 trials; 3553 participants; moderate-certainty evidence) and risk of falling (RR 0.81, 95% CI 0.71 to 0.92; I² = 0%; 5 trials; 2993 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). All trials included assessment of environmental and personal risk factors (including medication optimisation and assessment of need for assistive aids) and exercise interventions. As a single intervention, exercise was compared with usual care in 28 trials. At the end of the intervention period, active exercise probably reduces the rate of falls (RaR 0.68, 95% CI 0.51 to 0.91; I²= 84%; 14 trials; 2215 participants; moderate-certainty evidence) and risk of falling (RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.75 to 1.00; I² = 37%; 13 trials; 2408 participants; moderate-certainty evidence), but may have little or no effect on risk of any fracture (RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.58 to 1.78; 3 trials; 927 participants; low-certainty evidence). After a period of post-intervention follow-up, if active exercise is not sustained there is no effect on rate of falls (RaR 1.02, 95% CI 0.78 to 1.32; I² = 64%; 7 trial

Cite this study APA, Vancouver, BibTeX · download .bib or .ris

APA 7th

Dyer, S. M., Kwok, W. S., Suen, J., Dawson, R., Kneale, D., Sutcliffe, K., et al. (2025). Interventions for preventing falls in older people in care facilities. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.cd016064

Vancouver

Dyer SM, Kwok WS, Suen J, Dawson R, Kneale D, Sutcliffe K, et al. Interventions for preventing falls in older people in care facilities. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. 2025. doi:10.1002/14651858.cd016064. PMID: 40832852.

BibTeX

@article{dyer2025-40832852,
  author  = {Dyer, Suzanne M and Kwok, Wing S and Suen, Jenni and Dawson, Rik and Kneale, Dylan and Sutcliffe, Katy and Seppala, Lotta J and Hill, Keith and others},
  title   = {{Interventions for preventing falls in older people in care facilities}},
  journal = {Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews},
  year    = {2025},
  doi     = {10.1002/14651858.cd016064},
  pmid    = {40832852},
  url     = {https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.cd016064}
}

Built from the record alzhub holds for this paper, not looked up. Volume, issue and page numbers are not held in the record. The record's author list ends in “et al.”, so not every author is named. Check the citation against the original before you use it.

Key findings

Critical outcomes were rate of falls (number of falls per unit time) and number of fallers (risk of experiencing one or more falls).
Important outcomes were risk of fracture, adverse events, and economic outcomes.
RISK OF BIAS: We assessed risk of bias in the included studies against nine items (seven items from Cochrane's RoB 1 tool, plus method of ascertaining falls and baseline imbalance).
Overall, multifactorial interventions (i.e. two or more categories of intervention delivered based on individual risk profile) probably have little or no effect on the rate of falls (RaR 0.87, 95% CI 0.68 to 1.12; I² = 89%; 12 trials; 4843 participants; moderate-certainty evidence), but probably reduce the risk of falling (RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.83 to 1.00; I² = 19%; 11 trials; 4557 participants; moderate-certainty evidence).
Multifactorial interventions may be cost-effective in reducing falls (GBP 20,889 per quality-adjusted life year, UK health and social care perspective; 1 trial; 1657 participants; low-certainty evidence).

Why it matters

Multifactorial interventions probably have little or no effect on the rate of falls in care facilities, but probably reduce the risk of falling. A subgroup analysis suggested that interventions delivered in a tailored manner according to resident individual circumstances with facility staff engagement have greater effects.

Study details

Participants104
Effect sizeRR 0.91; RR 0.81; RR 0.86
Evidence strengthHigh

How this study scored 63/100

Published in a leading specialty journal. Scored zero for study design and randomised / blinded because the record does not state it.

Component	Points	Why
Journal tier	9 / 10	Tier 2 — leading specialty journal (Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews)
Journal's citation record	3 / 4	Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews: journal h-index 468 (OpenAlex, 2026-10-29)
Study design	0 / 12	No study design recorded — scores zero, not guessed (not stated in the record — scored 0)
Strength of evidence	5 / 5	Rated “high” in our summary
Peer-review validation	10 / 10	Peer-reviewed. Published as an article in a named peer-reviewed journal.
How recent	4 / 5	2025 — within 3 year(s) of the newest study here
Sample size	2 / 4	104 participants
Effect reported	3 / 3	Effect reported with a statistic (interval, p-value, ratio or similar)
Studied in people	3 / 3	Studied in people (participant count stated)
Randomised / blinded	0 / 2	No randomisation or blinding stated — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0)
Times cited	3 / 7	Cited 15 times (OpenAlex, 2026-10-10)
Citations per year	2 / 5	5.0 citations a year over 3 year(s) since 2025
Impact for its field and year	5 / 6	Cited 32.9× the average for papers of its field and year (OpenAlex FWCI)
Cited by studies here	0 / 6	No other study in this library cites it
Still being cited	2 / 4	Cited 15 times in 2024–2026 (2026 still in progress; OpenAlex)
Senior author's track record	3 / 4	Last-listed author Ian Douglas Cameron: h-index 75 (OpenAlex, whole career)
Institution's track record	2 / 3	University College London: institution h-index 2,029 (OpenAlex)
Multi-centre collaboration	3 / 3	OpenAlex lists 12 institution(s) in 4 countries
Indexed in PubMed	2 / 2	Indexed in PubMed (PMID 40832852)
Free to read	2 / 2	Free to read
Total	63 / 100	—

What each of these 20 components measures, and what this score is not →

Read the original

Full text: free to read — OpenAlex lists this copy as free to read: the link above (checked 6 Feb 1020).

Studies this one cites

Referenced by this study and also in the alzhub library, so you can read them here.

Related studies in Clinical safety

Also tagged “delirium”

858 studies in the library carry the topic tag “delirium”; these are this study's neighbours in a fixed, alphabetical-by-hash tour of them, not the closest in content. All 858 tagged studies.

Similar studies

More on Clinical safety

See all studies in Clinical safety →