Skip to main content

Table 1 Primary outcomes and secondary analyses

From: Partially supervised exercise programmes for fall prevention improve physical performance of older people at risk of falling: a three-armed multi-centre randomised controlled trial

Outcomes

Total (n = 374)a

Experimental group (n = 156)

Reference group (n = 145)

Control group (n = 73)

Total exposure, db

 Mean (SD)

271 (115)

271 (117)

279 (108)

258 (124)

 Median (interquartile range)

342 (177–360)

343 (170–361)

342 (205–358)

341 (152–364)

 No. of falls observed

382

141

199

42

Primary Outcomec

 Incidence rate ratio (95% CI), adjustedd

 

0.74 (0.49 to 1.12)

Comparator

0.43 (0.25 to 0.75)

 Incidence rate ratio (95% CI), adjustedd

 

1.71 (0.98 to 2.99)

2.30 (1.33 to 4.00)

Comparator

 Incidence rate ratio (95% CI), unadjusted

 

0.64 (0.42 to 0.97)

Comparator

0.41 (0.23 to 0.71)

 Incidence rate ratio (95% CI), unadjusted

 

1.58 (0.90 to 2.77)

2.46 (1.41 to 4.29)

Comparator

Secondary Analyses

 Estimated falls per person-years (95% CI), (adjusted)

1.41 (1.14 to 1.67)

1.33 (0.94 to 1.73)

1.80 (1.27 to 2.32)

0.78 (0.41 to 1.15)

 Estimated falls per person-years (95% CI), (unadjusted)

1.52 (1.23 to 1.81)

1.33 (0.93 to 1.72)

2.07 (1.46 to 2.67)

0.84 (0.44 to 1.24)

 Incidence rate difference (95% CI), adjustede

 

–0.46 (–1.12 to 0.19)

Comparator

–0.55 (–1.10 to –0.12)

 Incidence rate difference (95% CI), adjustedf

 

0.55 (0.12 to 1.10)

1.02 (0.38 to 1.65)

Comparator

No. of falls, No. (%) of participants

 0

217 (58)

90 (58)

81 (56)

46 (63)

 1

73 (20)

31 (20)

25 (17)

17 (23)

 2

41 (11)

19 (12)

15 (10)

7 (10)

 3

20 (5)

10 (6)

9 (6)

1 (1)

 ≥ 4

23 (6)

6 (4)

15 (10)

2 (3)

 No. (%) of participants with ≥ 1 fall

157 (42)

66 (42)

64 (44)

27 (37)

 No. of severeg falls observed, n

59

26

24

9

 Hazard ratio for repeated falls (95% CI)

 

0.68 (0.43 to 1.08)

Comparator

0.47 (0.29 to 0.75)

 Hazard ratio for repeated falls (95% CI)

 

1.45 (0.91 to 2.31)

2.12 (1.33 to 3.40)

Comparator

 Hazard ratio to first fall (95% CI)

 

0.92 (0.65 to 1.30)

Comparator

0.83 (0.53 to 1.31)

 Hazard ratio to first fall (95% CI)

 

1.11 (0.70 to 1.74)

1.20 (0.76 to 1.89)

Comparator

 Hazard ratio to second fall (95% CI)

 

0.81 (0.51 to 1.27)

Comparator

0.50 (0.25 to 1.01)

 Hazard ratio to second fall (95% CI)

 

1.60 (0.79 to 3.25)

1.99 (0.99 to 4.00)

Comparator

  1. aThirty-one participants were omitted from these analyses because they did not start the intervention and never sent a fall diary and hence were never at risk of falling
  2. bValues are without participants who had 0 follow-up time, i.e. without those who never received an intervention and never sent a falls diary (i.e. they were never at risk of falling)
  3. cThe differences in incidence rate ratio were 0.55 (95% CI 0.12 to 1.10; P = 0.045) for experimental group and 1.02 (95% CI 0.38 to 1.65; P = 0.002) for reference group versus control group; and 0.46 (95% CI –1.12 to 0.19; P = 0.166) for experimental group versus reference group
  4. dIncidence rate ratio from adjusted negative binomial regression. Adjusted for the stratification variables: risk category (moderate or high), urban or rural region, age greater or lower than 80 years
  5. eIncidence rate difference of the experimental group and control group versus the reference group
  6. fIncidence rate difference of the experimental group and reference group versus the control group
  7. gSevere falls means falls requiring medical treatment (i.e. with serious or moderate injuries)
Back to article page

BMC Geriatrics

ISSN: 1471-2318

Contact us