The Efficacy of Fall Hazards Identification on Fall Outcomes: A Systematic Review With Meta-analysis

Objective

To investigate the efficacy of fall hazards identification programs when compared to no intervention or other fall prevention programs on number of falls, falls incidence, and identifying fall hazards in community-dwelling adults.

Data Sources

CINAHL, PubMed, EMBASE, Scopus, and PsychINFO were used to identify articles.

Study Selection

Studies were selected to compare fall hazards identification programs to a control group. Studies were eligible if they were randomized controlled trials and enrolled adults older than 50 years with the incidence rate of falls as an outcome.

Data Extraction

Study or authors, year, sample characteristics, intervention or comparison groups, number of falls, and number of hazards identified in the intervention and control groups, and follow-up were extracted. The risk of bias assessment was performed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool. Quality was evaluated with Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach per outcome.

Data Synthesis

A total of 8 studies (N=8) and 5177 participants were included. There was a high risk of bias across the studies mostly due to improper blinding of personnel of the outcome assessor. Pooled estimate effects from 5 studies assessing the incidence rate of falls from 3019 individuals indicated no difference between fall hazards identification programs and control (incidence rate ratio=0.98; 95% confidence interval, 0.87-1.10).

Conclusions

The current study suggests that there may be a benefit for fall hazards programs in reducing incident falls. However, because of a moderate GRADE rating, more large-scale studies with a higher number of falls events and more consistent control groups are required to determine the true effect.

Web-based home-hazard modification app for falls prevention: the views of those at risk of falling and their carers

Purpose

The purpose of the study is to assess the usability and acceptability of FallCheck, a Web app that allows users to complete home-hazard assessments within their own home, with a group of people at risk of falling and their carers.

Design/methodology/approach

This mixed method study used an online survey followed by semi-structured telephone interviews to collect both qualitative and quantitative data. A Think-Aloud study was used to test usability of the Web app through structured tasks.

Findings

Findings showed that FallCheck was easy to use with few usability issues. The Web app was deemed appropriate to use by people at risk of falling (young or old) or by carers if appropriate. The depth of knowledge provision and breadth of content was acceptable, and many participants reported subsequently making changes to their home environment to reduce their risk of falling. Overall, the majority of participants reported feelings of improved confidence and safety with an increased awareness of fall risks and a reduction in fear of falling at home.

Practical implications

FallCheck has good acceptability and usability with people at risk of falling and their carers and has the potential to improve access to home-hazard assessment and affect behavioural change regarding fall risk hazards and behaviour.

Originality/value

This study describes successful use of an app that may be helpful in identifying home-hazards and making changes to reduce risk of falls, particularly in the absence of occupational therapy intervention and has the potential for integration into falls care pathways.

Mobile health app usability and quality rating scales: a systematic review

PURPOSE

To review the rating scales used to evaluate usability and quality of mobile health applications, and to compare their purpose, content, and intended target users (i.e., patients, caregivers, or researchers).

MATERIAL AND METHODS

We conducted a systematic review of the literature in accordance with the PRISMA statement on Medline, CINAHL, PsycINFO, IEEE Explore databases, as well as a review of the grey literature to identify rating scales used to evaluate usability and quality of mobile health applications (m-health apps), between January 1, 2000 and July 31, 2018. Two researchers screened the titles and abstracts of articles that met inclusion criteria, and retrieved usability and quality rating scales from the articles.

RESULTS

We identified 24 usability scales and 25 quality rating scales in 87 peer-reviewed articles. We identified only one quality rating scale designed for non-expert users (i.e., patients or caregivers). None of the studies used a theoretical framework for app evaluation to support the scales. The validity of existing quality rating scales is yet to be investigated.

CONCLUSION

Existing usability and quality rating scales are targeted at professionals, not end users who are patients or caregivers. Rating scales that are usable by all end-users would make mobile health apps accessible and meaningful to consumers.Implications for rehabilitationThe number of mobile health applications on app stores that can be used for rehabilitation is increasing.Most healthcare providers lack the training to identify m-health apps with high quality to be used in rehabilitation.This study has reviewed the current rating scales that can help clinicians and care providers rate the quality of m-health apps and identify the ones that are most appropriate for their practice.