Hostname: page-component-7b9c58cd5d-v2ckm Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-03-16T10:26:12.667Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

The Effects and Costs of a Multifactorial and Interdisciplinary Team Approach to Falls Prevention for Older Home Care Clients ‘At Risk’ for Falling: A Randomized Controlled Trial*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  04 March 2010

Maureen Markle-Reid*
Affiliation:
McMaster University
Gina Browne
Affiliation:
McMaster University
Amiram Gafni
Affiliation:
McMaster University
Jacqueline Roberts
Affiliation:
McMaster University
Robin Weir
Affiliation:
McMaster University
Lehana Thabane
Affiliation:
McMaster University
Melody Miles
Affiliation:
McMaster University
Vida Vaitonis
Affiliation:
McMaster University
Catherine Hecimovich
Affiliation:
McMaster University
Pamela Baxter
Affiliation:
McMaster University
Sandra Henderson
Affiliation:
McMaster University
*
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to / La correspondance concernant cet article doit être adressées à: Maureen Markle-Reid, RN, Ph.D., McMaster University, School of Nursing, 1200 Main Street West, HSC 3N28H, Hamilton, Ontario L8N 3Z5 (mreid@mcmaster.ca)
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This study determined the effects and costs of a multifactorial, interdisciplinary team approach to falls prevention. Randomized controlled trial of 109 older adults who are at risk for falls. This was a six-month multifactorial and evidence-based prevention strategy involving an interdisciplinary team. The primary outcome was number of falls during the six-month follow-up. At six months, no difference in the mean number of falls between groups. Subgroup analyses showed that the intervention effectively reduced falls in men (75–84 years old) with a fear of falling or negative fall history. Number of slips and trips was greatly reduced; and emotional health had a greater improvement in role functioning related to emotional health in the intervention group. Quality of life was improved, slips and trips were reduced, as were falls among males (75–84 years old) with a fear of falling or negative fall history.

Résumé

Cette étude a déterminé les effets et les coûts d’une approche d’équipe multifactoriel et interdisciplinaire à la prévention des chutes. Essai contrôlé aléatoire de 109 adultes plus âgés qui sont à risque de chutes. Ce fut une stratégie de prévention multifactoriel fondée sur des données probantes de 6 mois, impliquant une équipe interdisciplinaire. Le résultat principal a été le nombre des chutes suivi pendant 6 mois. À 6 mois, il n’y a aucune différence dans le nombre moyen de chutes entre groupes. Des analyses des sous-groupes ont montrés que l’intervention réduit efficacement les chutes chez les hommes (75–84 ans) qui ont peur de tomber ou une histoire négative de chutes. Le nombre de glissades et de trébuchés a été considérablement réduit, et la santé émotionnelle a montré une amélioration plus importante dans le fonctionnement lié à la santé émotionnelle dans le groupe d’intervention. La qualité de vie a été améliorée, glissades et trébuchés ont été réduits, comme l’étaient les chutes chez les hommes qui avaient peur de tomber ou une histoire de chutes négative.

Type
Articles
Copyright
Copyright © Canadian Association on Gerontology 2010

Introduction

Frail seniors are at increased risk of falls, with approximately 50 per cent falling at least once per year (three times the risk of healthy seniors) (Kenny, Rubenstein, Martin, & Tinetti, Reference Kenny, Rubenstein, Martin and Tinetti2001; Speechley & Tinetti, Reference Speechley and Tinetti1991). They are also more likely to sustain serious injury and take longer to recover after falling (SmartRisk, 1998). Evidence suggests that most falls are predictable and preventable. Previous intervention studies showed that approximately 30 to 40 per cent of falls are preventable (Close, Ellis, Hooper, Glucksman, Jackson, & Swift, Reference Close, Ellis, Hooper, Glucksman, Jackson and Swift1999; Gillespie, Gillespie, Robertson, Lamb, Cumming, & Rowe, Reference Gillespie, Gillespie, Robertson, Lamb, Cumming and Rowe2003; Tinetti, Baker, McAvay, Claus, Garrett, Gottschalk et al., Reference Tinetti, Baker, McAvay, Claus, Garrett and Gottschalk1994). Falls prevention strategies could result in 7,500 fewer hospitalizations per year among Canadian seniors (SmartRisk, 1998).

Home care occupies a strategic position in the prevention of falls among older people (Todd & Skelton, Reference Todd and Skelton2004) who represent 75 to 80 per cent of home care users (Roos, Stranc, Peterson, Mitchell, Bogdanovic, & Shapiro, Reference Roos, Stranc, Peterson, Mitchell, Bogdanovic and Shapiro2001). However, the number of older home care recipients in Canada who are at risk for falls is not well documented. As well, there is little or no information about the best way to provide home care services for prevention of falls among seniors with chronic needs.

The Burden of Falls in Canada

Thirty per cent of community-dwelling adults over 65 years of age fall at least once a year, and the proportion increases to 50 per cent by age 80 (O’Loughlin, Robitaille, Boivin, & Suisa, Reference O’Loughlin, Robitaille, Boivin and Suisa1993). In people aged 65 years and older, falls are the leading cause of injury-related admissions to acute care hospitals and in-hospital deaths (Canadian Institute for Health Information [CIHI], 2002) and explain 40 per cent of nursing home admissions (Wilkins, Reference Wilkins1999). Many older people who fall need ongoing assistance at home from community services. The costs of health care associated with fall-related injuries are staggering. The 1999/2000 costs of fall injuries to seniors in Canada were estimated to be $2.4 billion (CIHI, 2002). With an aging population and an associated increase in the number of falls and fall-related injuries, these cost estimates are projected to rise as high as $240 billion by the year 2040 (SmartRisk, 2006). Aside from the economic cost, the human cost of a fall should not be underestimated. Fall injuries often result in fear of falling (Fletcher & Hirdes, Reference Fletcher and Hirdes2004; Sjösten, Vaapio, & Kivelä, Reference Sjösten, Vaapio and Kivelä2008), leading to self-imposed restriction of activity and loss of confidence (Tinetti & Powell, Reference Tinetti and Powell1993), low self-esteem, depression (Sjösten et al.), chronic pain, and functional deterioration (Tinetti, Speechley, & Ginter, Reference Tinetti, Speechley and Ginter1988). Falls and fall-related injuries and complications are the leading cause of death among seniors (CIHI, 2004). Clearly, prevention of falls is an important issue if it can avert a decline in function and independence and avoid the associated increased costs of complications.

Home Care Services and Falls Prevention

An aging population, technological advances, and budget constraints have led to major health care reforms worldwide. Extensive reform initiatives have given rise to fewer acute care hospitals and increasing pressure to continue to expand and enhance home care services for older, more vulnerable, and frail individuals within the confines of economic constraint (Bergman, Beland, Lebel, Contandriopoulos, Tousignant, Brunelle et al., Reference Bergman, Beland, Lebel, Contandriopoulos, Tousignant and Brunelle1997). The result of these trends is increasing competition for scarce home care resources. Home care programs have responded to this increased demand for their services by redirecting scarce resources away from health promotion and preventive functions, for individuals with chronic health needs, to substitution functions to meet the more pressing need for post-acute care (Canadian Home Care Association [CHCA], 2003; CIHI, 2002; Hollander, Reference Hollander2003; Soderstrom, Tousignant, & Kaufman, Reference Soderstrom, Tousignant and Kaufman1999).

These changes have resulted in a number of issues that challenge the ability of home care programs to provide effective falls prevention to older people. First, frail older adults have limited access to professional services directed towards preventing falls (Hollander, Reference Hollander2003). Second, there is limited collaboration and communication among home care providers involved in caring for older people at risk for falls. Third, there is no evidence-based practice standard for falls prevention in home care and a lack of expertise among service providers in fall prevention strategies. The result is a fragmented and inefficient system of health service delivery, rather than a comprehensive and proactive approach to care. Typically, on-demand care is less effective and more costly than providing comprehensive care (Browne, Roberts, Byrne, Gafni, Weir, & Majumdar, Reference Browne, Roberts, Byrne, Gafni, Weir and Majumdar2001; Johri, Beland, & Bergman, Reference Johri, Beland and Bergman2003). Recent data suggest that preventable and ameliorable adverse events (such as a fall) are associated with one or more deficiencies in the system of care, such as ineffective communication among providers (Forster, Murff, Peterson, Gandhi, & Bates, Reference Forster, Murff, Peterson, Gandhi and Bates2003). New ways of approaching care are needed, and different solutions are required to address these issues and enhance the ability of home care programs to provide effective falls prevention.

Multifactorial Falls Prevention Programs for Older Adults

Falls generally result from an interaction of multiple, diverse risk factors and situations, correction of just one of which can reduce the frequency and morbidity of falls (Kenny et al., Reference Kenny, Rubenstein, Martin and Tinetti2001). The risk factors can be broadly divided into “intrinsic” and “extrinsic” factors (Kenny et al.; Masud & Morris, Reference Masud and Morris2001). Demographic and biological factors are intrinsic, whereas environmental and behavioural factors are extrinsic (Speechley & Tinetti, Reference Speechley and Tinetti1991). Among the community-dwelling population, intrinsic risk factors for falling include history of falls, female gender, advanced age, reduced lower-limb strength, gait and balance impairment, previous slips or trips, difficulty in activities of daily living (ADLs), functional impairment, certain chronic diseases (e.g., arthritis, Parkinson’s disease, diabetes, or stroke) and co-morbidity, cognitive impairment, depression, poor nutrition, underweight or unintentional weight loss, visual impairment or hearing loss, and urinary incontinence or nocturia. Extrinsic risk factors for falling include taking four or more prescription medications daily or taking sedative or hypnotic medications, environmental hazards, fear of falling, inactivity, inappropriate clothing or footwear, low income and education levels, excess alcohol use, and social isolation (Bueno-Cavanillas, Padilla-Ruiz, Jiménez-Moleón, Peinado-Alonso, & Gálvez-Vargas, Reference Bueno-Cavanillas, Padilla-Ruiz, Jiménez-Moleón, Peinado-Alonso and Gálvez-Vargas2000; Kenny et al.; Lord, Ward, Williams, & Anstey, Reference Lord, Ward, Williams and Anstey1994; O’Loughlin et al., Reference O’Loughlin, Robitaille, Boivin and Suisa1993; Steinberg, Cartwright, Peel, & Williams, Reference Steinberg, Cartwright, Peel and Williams2000; Tinetti et al., Reference Tinetti, Speechley and Ginter1988).

Early prevention interventions that incorporate an interdisciplinary approach combining a variety of strategies, aimed at all possible factors that contribute to causing a fall, will have the greatest effect because of the multifactorial nature of falls (Chang, Morton, Rubenstein, Mojica, Maglione, Suttorp et al., Reference Chang, Morton, Rubenstein, Mojica, Maglione and Suttorp2004; Gillespie et al., Reference Gillespie, Gillespie, Robertson, Lamb, Cumming and Rowe2003), especially among high-risk groups (Gillespie et al., Reference Gillespie, Gillespie, Robertson, Lamb, Cumming and Rowe2003; Tinetti et al., Reference Tinetti, Baker, McAvay, Claus, Garrett and Gottschalk1994) and individuals with chronic conditions (Leatt, Pink, & Guerriere, Reference Leatt, Pink and Guerriere2000). A key strategy for preventing multifactorial adverse events (such as falls) is the development of partnerships among individuals, service providers, and organizations, because no single discipline alone can identify and address all risk factors (National Steering Committee on Patient Safety, 2002). Furthermore, there is accumulating evidence in Canada that proactive, comprehensive, and coordinated community care for people with chronic needs is more effective and less expensive than providing reactive and on-demand care (Browne et al., Reference Browne, Roberts, Byrne, Gafni, Weir and Majumdar2001; Markle-Reid, Weir, Browne, Roberts, Gafni, & Henderson, Reference Markle-Reid, Weir, Browne, Roberts, Gafni and Henderson2006b).

The literature on the effectiveness of multifactorial falls prevention programs specific to older, community-dwelling adults is surprisingly limited. Few published randomized controlled trials have assessed the effect of interventions on secondary outcomes such as functional health status and related quality of life, mental health (e.g., depression) (Lin, Wolf, Hwang, Gong, & Chen, Reference Lin, Wolf, Hwang, Gong and Chen2007; Sjösten et al., Reference Sjösten, Vaapio and Kivelä2008), and behavioural factors (Clemson, Cummings, Kendig, Swann, Heard, & Taylor, Reference Clemson, Cummings, Kendig, Swann, Heard and Taylor2004; Close et al., Reference Close, Ellis, Hooper, Glucksman, Jackson and Swift1999; Day, Fildes, Gordon, Fitzharris, Flamer, & Lord, Reference Day, Fildes, Gordon, Fitzharris, Flamer and Lord2002; Gallagher & Brunt, Reference Gallagher and Brunt1996; van Haastregt, Diederiks, van Rossum, de Witte, Voorhoeve, & Crebolder, Reference van Haastregt, Diederiks, van Rossum, de Witte, Voorhoeve and Crebolder2000; Hornbrook, Steven, Wingfield, Hollis, Greenlick, & Ory, Reference Hornbrook, Steven, Wingfield, Hollis, Greenlick and Ory1994; Kingston, Jones, Lally, & Crome, Reference Kingston, Jones, Lally and Crome2001; Lightbody, Watkins, Leathley, Sharma, & Lye, Reference Lightbody, Watkins, Leathley, Sharma and Lye2002; Nikolaus & Bach, Reference Nikolaus and Bach2003; Rizzo, Baker, McAvay, & Tinetti, Reference Rizzo, Baker, McAvay and Tinetti1996; Robson, Edwards, Gallagher, & Baker, Reference Robson, Edwards, Gallagher and Baker2002; Shaw, Bond, Richardson, Dawson, Steen, McKeith et al., Reference Shaw, Bond, Richardson, Dawson, Steen and McKeith2003; Shumway-Cook, Silver, LeMier, York, Cummings & Koepsell, Reference Shumway-Cook, Silver, LeMier, York, Cummings and Koepsell2007; Steinberg et al., Reference Steinberg, Cartwright, Peel and Williams2000; Tinetti et al., Reference Tinetti, Baker, McAvay, Claus, Garrett and Gottschalk1994; Vetter, Lewis, & Ford, Reference Vetter, Lewis and Ford1992; Wagner, LaCroix, Grothaus, Leveille, Hecht, Artz et al., Reference Wagner, LaCroix, Grothaus, Leveille, Hecht and Artz1994; Yates & Dunnagan, Reference Yates and Dunnagan2001), or examined which sub-groups of home care recipients benefit most. In addition, older people with chronic conditions were often excluded from these trials. These omissions are important because depression, behavioural factors (Sjösten et al.), and chronic conditions increase the risk of falls (Kenny et al., Reference Kenny, Rubenstein, Martin and Tinetti2001), functional decline, and use of expensive health care resources (Stuck, Walthert, Nikolaus, Bula, Hohmann, & Beck, Reference Stuck, Walthert, Nikolaus, Bula, Hohmann and Beck1999).

A limited number of the studies included persons receiving home support services. Such individuals are typically medically unstable, have severe mobility or cognitive impairments, or are in need of assistance with ADLs, the same conditions that are associated with increased risks of falling and being injured (Scott, Votova, & Gallagher, Reference Scott, Votova and Gallagher2006b). In addition, no study has examined the costs of health services associated with a multifactorial falls prevention program compared to usual care. Furthermore, the interventions were staffed by different types of providers, resulting in limited information on how to optimize the allocation of health services.

Based on the potentially important role of home care in falls prevention for frail older people, the compelling evidence for an interdisciplinary team approach, and the increasing pressure for evidence of efficient use of scarce resources, we identified the need for a study of the effects and costs of a multifactorial and interdisciplinary team approach to falls prevention. The rationing of home care services for clients with chronic needs enabled a natural comparison of the effects of a proactive service with those of on-demand use of these services. Our primary hypothesis was that older people receiving the multifactorial and interdisciplinary team approach versus usual home care would show a reduction in fall risk factors and number of falls at six months. Further, we hypothesized that the intervention would pay for itself by reducing the use of expensive health care resources.

Methods

The randomized controlled trial was conducted in accordance with the Tri-Council Policy Statement, “Ethical Conduct for Research Involving Humans” (Canadian Institutes of Health Research, Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada, Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada, 1998). Ethics approval for the study was obtained from the McMaster University Research and Ethics Board and renewed yearly as required (# 05-279). All participants provided written informed consent for participation. The methods, results, and flow of participants through the study (see Figure 1) are presented here according to the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT)Statement (Moher, Schulz, & Altman, Reference Moher, Schulz and Altman2001).

Figure 1: Study flow diagram

Research Questions

The specific research questions follow Among older home care clients at risk for falling, (1) is a six-month multifactorial, interdisciplinary team approach to falls prevention effective in reducing the number of falls compared with usual home care services; (2) does a six-month multifactorial, interdisciplinary team approach have a favourable effect on fall risk factors (number of slips and trips, functional health status and related quality of life, nutritional status, gait and balance, depressive symptoms, cognitive function, and confidence in performing ADLs) compared with usual home care services; and (3) what are the six-month costs to use health services with a multifactorial, interdisciplinary team approach compared with usual home care services?

Participants and Setting

This was a collaborative project between researchers in the McMaster University System-Linked Research Unit (SLRU) and decision makers and practitioners in the Hamilton Niagara Haldimand Brant and Mississauga Halton Community Care Access Centres (CCAC) and two direct care provider agencies (Halton Region Health Department, Community Rehab) in Ontario, Canada. The SLRU has extensive experience conducting community-based randomized trials. The CCAC provides publicly funded home care using a contractual model of service delivery, wherein case managers contract out home care services to agencies that provide care to clients.

Study participants were adults aged 75 years and older, newly referred to and eligible for home support services through the CCAC, living in the community (not in a nursing home or other long-term care facility), mentally competent to give informed consent, and competent in English or with a translator available. Individuals were eligible for home support services if they required assistance with personal care, which could be provided by either a caregiver or a home support worker contracted by the CCAC. With oral consent, clients meeting these criteria were screened for risk for falls. An older person was deemed to be “at risk” for falls and thus eligible for the study, if he/she answered “yes” to any of the following questions: Have you fallen in the past 12 months; do you have a fear of falling, or are you unsteady on your feet (Kenny et al., Reference Kenny, Rubenstein, Martin and Tinetti2001)? To validate their informed consent to enrolling and continued participation in the study, participants needed to score 24 or higher on the Standardized Mini-Mental State Examination (SMMSE) (Kukull, Larson, Teri, Bowen, McCormick, & Pfanschmidt, Reference Kukull, Larson, Teri, Bowen, McCormick and Pfanschmidt1994) or have a substitute decision-maker to provide consent and complete the questionnaires on their behalf.

Interventions

Control (Usual Home Care Services)

Participants randomly allocated to the control group received standard home care services arranged by the CCAC. These included (1) routine follow-up by the CCAC case manager whose focus was on assessing the client’s eligibility for in-home health services; (2) arranging and coordinating professional (i.e., nursing, occupational therapy, physiotherapy, social work, speech-language pathology, and nutrition) and non-professional home support services; (3) providing information and referral to community agencies; and (4) monitoring and evaluating the plan of care on an ongoing basis through in-home assessments with clients (MacAdam, Reference MacAdam2000). Additional services may have included drug cards, supplies, equipment, transportation, and in-house laboratory services (CHCA, 2003).

Experimental (Multifactorial and Interdisciplinary Team Approach)

The experimental group received the same standard home care services as the control group, plus home visitation by a dedicated team of professionals (CCAC case manager, registered nurse, occupational therapist, physiotherapist, and registered dietitian) a minimum of once per month for six months. The CCAC case manager provided leadership and coordinated communication among members of the interdisciplinary team, the family physician, and other community services. A geriatrician and community pharmacist were available on a consultation basis. The professionals tailored their visits to the individual needs of the client. Their main activities included (1) conducting a comprehensive, systematic, and routine assessment to identify known risk factors for falls and other factors influencing health using validated screening instruments; (2) regularly assessing and managing modifiable fall risk factors; (3) providing intensive client support; and (4) educating clients about falls prevention. The aim of the interdisciplinary team was to reduce falls and fall-related injuries, enhance health and quality of life, and reduce on-demand use of health care services. All aspects of the intervention were developed through a collaborative process with decision makers and practitioners from the participating agencies with the goal of integrating the intervention into normal practice once the study ended.

A fall risk management protocol was developed to provide a systematic, standardized, and evidence-based approach to the initial and ongoing assessments and modification of risk across disciplines. The protocol included the use of validated screening instruments to assess fall risk and other factors influencing health. The screening instruments targeted proven intrinsic and extrinsic causes of falls.

Each client was discussed by the interdisciplinary team at a case conference a minimum of once per month for six months. A team meeting booklet was developed to guide the team systematically through a series of questions that triggered the assessment of fall risk factors, use of motivational theory, and recommended actions for prevention for each study participant. Motivational interviewing is a directive and client-centered counselling style that relies upon identifying and mobilizing the client’s intrinsic values and goals to stimulate behaviour change (Miller & Rollnick, Reference Miller and Rollnick2002), thus encouraging client and family involvement in all aspects of care. During the case conference, the team developed a single accessible fall prevention plan to address modifiable fall risk factors and other factors influencing health using various evidence-based strategies (e.g., environmental modification, routine exercise, health assessment, and maintenance medication modification) (Gillespie et al., Reference Gillespie, Gillespie, Robertson, Lamb, Cumming and Rowe2003; Kenny et al., Reference Kenny, Rubenstein, Martin and Tinetti2001) and to identify and manage barriers to preventing falls such as low self-efficacy, low self-confidence, and fear of falling (Watter & Studensky, Reference Watter and Studensky1996). The plan included specific short-term and six-month goals, a list of actions and referrals, and a record of all recommendations. The results of the initial and ongoing assessments of risk and the client’s involvement in the care plan were documented in the team meeting booklet and reviewed during each case conference.

One-day training sessions were provided for the CCAC case managers and all members of the interdisciplinary team, based on their differing levels of expertise and team roles. The sessions focused on the problem scope and proven fall prevention strategies, as well as more general theory-based strategies for addressing barriers to falls prevention. Specific training was given on the use of motivational interviewing to address these barriers and promote positive changes in behaviour to reduce falls risk. The sessions also stressed the importance of working in partnership with clients, their families, and other professionals, and the key features of an effective collaboration. The training sessions were interactive, based on experience, and supplemented by follow-up sessions over the course of the trial. A detailed description of the intervention can be found elsewhere (Markle-Reid, Henderson, Anderson, Baxter, Hecimovich, Browne et al., Reference Markle-Reid, Henderson, Anderson, Baxter, Hecimovich and Browne2007; Markle-Reid, Miles, Vaitonis, Henderson, Anderson, Baxter et al., Reference Markle-Reid, Miles, Vaitonis, Henderson, Anderson and Baxter2008a).

The frequency and timing of the home visits and case conferences were tailored to individual client needs and the results of ongoing risk assessment (Kenny et al., Reference Kenny, Rubenstein, Martin and Tinetti2001). Participants received a median of 19.5 home visits and three telephone contacts by members of the interdisciplinary team over the six-month study period. These contacts consisted of a median of three home visits and 1.5 telephone contacts by the CCAC case manager, six visits by the nurse, four visits by the occupational therapist, six visits by the physiotherapist, and zero visits by the registered dietitian, social worker, and pharmacist. The average duration of home visits was one hour. Participants were discussed a median of six times at interdisciplinary team meetings. To ensure continuity of care, team members followed the same clients over the trial’s course.

Outcomes

Trained interviewers, blinded to the purpose of the study and group assignment, assessed participants at baseline and six months through a structured in-home interview. Previous research suggests that six months is an optimal time to assess the immediate effects (Gillespie et al., Reference Gillespie, Gillespie, Robertson, Lamb, Cumming and Rowe2003; Lightbody et al., Reference Lightbody, Watkins, Leathley, Sharma and Lye2002; Scott, Bawa, Votova, Rajabali, Han, Swan et al., Reference Scott, Bawa, Votova, Rajabali, Han and Swan2006a), while minimizing attrition rates. The interviewers were experienced health professionals who underwent intensive training, standardization, and inter-rater reliability assessment in all interview and data collection procedures.

The primary outcome was mean number of falls during the six-month follow-up, measured by self-report. All participants kept a calendar to record daily any slip, trip, or fall and returned it at the end of each month. Interviewers blinded to treatment assignment telephoned participants monthly to obtain additional information on any incident recorded on the previous month’s fall calendar using the Falls Surveillance Report, which was created by the research team (Markle-Reid et al., Reference Markle-Reid, Miles, Vaitonis, Henderson, Anderson and Baxter2008a). For the purposes of this study, a slip or trip was defined as regaining balance without a fall (Steinberg et al., Reference Steinberg, Cartwright, Peel and Williams2000), whereas a fall was defined as unintentionally coming to rest on the ground or floor (Registered Nurses Association of Ontario, 2005). Self-report is an essential source of data because many falls among older community-dwelling adults are not witnessed and do not require medical attention (Clemson et al., Reference Clemson, Cummings, Kendig, Swann, Heard and Taylor2004; Day et al., Reference Day, Fildes, Gordon, Fitzharris, Flamer and Lord2002; Lightbody et al., Reference Lightbody, Watkins, Leathley, Sharma and Lye2002; Steinberg et al.).

Secondary outcomes were changes in fall risk factors from baseline to six months. These risk factors included the following: (1) self-reported slip or trip frequency measured by the Falls Surveillance Report; (2) functional health status and related quality of life measured by the SF-36 health survey (Ware, Snow, Kosinski, & Gandek, Reference Ware, Snow, Kosinski and Gandek1993); (3) nutritional status measured by the Seniors in the Community: Risk Evaluation for Eating and Nutrition, Version II (SCREEN II) (Keller, Goy, & Kane, Reference Keller, Goy and Kane2005); (4) gait and balance measured by the Performance-Oriented Mobility Assessment (POMA) (Tinetti, Reference Tinetti1986); (5) depressive symptoms measured by the Centre for Epidemiological Studies in Depression Scale (CES-D) (Radloff, Reference Radloff1977); (6) cognitive function measured by the SMMSE (Folstein, Folstein, & McHugh, Reference Folstein, Folstein and McHugh1975); and (7) confidence in performing ADLs without falling measured by the Modified Falls Efficacy Scale (MFES) (Hill, Schwartz, Kalogeropoulos, & Gibson, Reference Hill, Schwartz, Kalogeropoulos and Gibson1996). The thresholds for the SCREEN II, POMA, CES-D, and SMMSE are identified in Table 1. All measurement tools have established reliability and validity. In addition to these data, we also collected basic socio-demographic data and information on health status.

Table 1: Comparison of demographic, clinical, and social characteristics between treatment groups at baseline (study completers, n = 92)

* Wald Chi-Square

a Numbers do not add to 92 as a result of missing scores (n = 2)

b High-risk medications include these: antidepressant, anti-psychotic, anti-histamines, anticonvulsants, anti-Parkinson’s, benzodiazepines, non-steroidal anti-inflammatories, cardiovascular medicines, opioid analgesics.

c Numbers do not add to 92 as a result of missing scores (n = 2)

The costs of use of all types of health services from baseline to six months were determined using the Health and Social Services Utilization Inventory (HSSUI), which assesses costs from a societal perspective (Browne, Gafni, & Roberts, Reference Browne, Gafni and Roberts2006). A societal perspective implies collecting all costs, regardless of who bears them. The wider the perspective taken, the more applicable the study is to social policy decisions (Drummond, O’Brien, Stoddart, & Torrance, Reference Drummond, O’Brien, Stoddart and Torrance1997). The HSSUI consists of questions about the respondent’s use of six categories of direct health care services: (1) primary care; (2) emergency department and specialists; (3) hospital days; (4) seven types of other health and social professionals; (5) medications; and (6) lab services. Inquiries were restricted to the reliable duration of recall: six months for remembering a hospitalization, two weeks for a visit to the physician, and two days for use of a prescription medication (Browne et al., Reference Browne, Gafni and Roberts2006; Petrou, Murray, Cooper, & Davidson, Reference Petrou, Murray, Cooper and Davidson2002). Questions to assess out-of-pocket costs (indirect costs, cash transfer effects) are also included (Browne et al., Reference Browne, Gafni and Roberts2006). The six-month cost data were derived from “quantity” data reported on the HSSUI and 2006 “price” data obtained by our team for the HSSUI. The product of the number of units of service (quantity) and unit cost (price) is total cost. Price data for both direct and indirect costs were obtained from multiple sources that are reported in detail elsewhere (Browne et al., Reference Browne, Gafni and Roberts2006). Each person’s cost data were analyzed in relation to outcome. This measure has been previously tested and assessed for reliability and validity (Browne et al., Reference Browne, Roberts, Gafni, Byrne, Weir and Majumdar1999, Reference Browne, Roberts, Byrne, Gafni, Weir and Majumdar2001), and was recently acknowledged as one of the few published measures of ambulatory utilization that is empirically validated (Guerriere, Ungar, Corey, Croxford, Trammer, Tullis et al., Reference Guerriere, Ungar, Corey, Croxford, Tranmer and Tullis2006).

Sample Size

The sample size calculation was based on the primary measure of effect, which was the difference between groups in mean number of falls during the six-month follow-up. We expected that the control group would have a mean of 0.50 falls (Speechley & Tinetti, Reference Speechley and Tinetti1991). The sample size was calculated to detect a 30 per cent difference (0.15 falls) between groups. A 30 per cent reduction at six months was considered achievable on the basis of other multifactorial studies in this population (Gillespie et al., Reference Gillespie, Gillespie, Robertson, Lamb, Cumming and Rowe2003; Lightbody et al., Reference Lightbody, Watkins, Leathley, Sharma and Lye2002; Robson et al., Reference Robson, Edwards, Gallagher and Baker2002; Scott et al., Reference Scott, Bawa, Votova, Rajabali, Han and Swan2006a; Yates & Dunnagan, Reference Yates and Dunnagan2001) and of considerable economic importance. Using a standard deviation of 0.25 as a conservative estimate and a delta of 0.15, a sample size of 110 participants (55 per group) was estimated to be sufficient to address the primary question, allowing an additional 20 per cent to offset drop-outs (2-tailed alpha = 0.05; beta = 0.20) (Fleiss, Reference Fleiss1981).

Randomization

After participants provided written consent and completed baseline questionnaires, they were randomly assigned by the project coordinator at McMaster University to one of two treatment strategies using a 1:1 allocation ratio. Randomization was achieved using consecutively numbered, sealed, opaque envelopes containing randomly generated numbers constructed by a biostatistician who was not involved in the recruitment process.

Blinding

Once randomization had taken place, the CCAC case managers, members of the interdisciplinary team, and participants were aware of group assignments. This lack of blinding was unavoidable. However, the outcome assessors and statistician/data analyst were blinded to the purpose of the study and group assignments.

Statistical Methods

All analyses were performed using SPSS version 15.0 for Windows. The baseline prevalence of falls, slips, and trips and the characteristics of the sample were summarized using descriptive statistics expressed as mean (standard deviation [SD]) for continuous variables and count (percent) for categorical variables. The hypothesis of effectiveness and efficiency was tested in a two-group comparison of all participants who completed the six-month follow-up. We used repeated measures of analysis of variance (ANOVA) to compare the mean changes in scores for primary and secondary outcomes at six months. We used normal probability plots to assess normality and the Kruskal–Wallis test if the normality assumption was seriously violated. We used Poisson regression to adjust for potential residual effects of key baseline characteristics on outcomes. All statistical tests were performed using two-sided tests at the 0.05 level of significance. For regression analyses, we checked the residuals and found no major violations of model assumptions.

Sub-group analysis was performed by regression techniques using simple two-way interactions between study group and characteristics thought to influence fall risk (female gender, fall in the past six months, balance and gait, cognitive status, use of four or more prescription medications, use of three or more prescription medications affecting the cardiovascular or central nervous systems, depression, visual impairment, nutritional risk, fear of falling, unsteadiness on feet, four or more co-morbid health conditions, age, living arrangement, slips or trips in the past six months, admission to acute care hospital in the past six months, hearing impairment, environmental hazard, cardiovascular, neurological, or musculoskeletal disorder, limitations in ADLs , and functional health status and related quality of life). Number of falls during the six-month follow-up was the dependent variable. We hypothesized that older people with these risk factors would benefit most from the intervention. This sub-group analysis was decided a priori.

Results

Recruitment/Participant Flow

Recruitment was conducted over a nine-month period between May 2006 and February 2007. A total of 525 consecutive CCAC clients were screened for the study, and 267 (50.9%) were considered eligible. The most common reason for ineligibility (36.8%) was not being at risk for falls (no fall within the previous 12 months, fear of falling or unsteadiness on their feet). Other reasons included refusal to participate (18.6%), inability to contact (16.7%), non-English speaking with no translator available (16.3%), living outside the study region (7.0%), and failing the SMMSE with no substitute decision maker available (3.9%). In total, 109 (40.8%) of the 267 eligible home care clients consented and were randomized (Figure 1).

Numbers Analyzed

The proportion of participants who completed the study was 43/55 (78.2%) in the control group and 49/54 (90.7%) in the intervention group (Figure 1). Reasons for loss to follow-up included death (seven participants) and refusal to participate (10 participants). Rates of attrition because of death did not differ significantly between groups. Thus, analyses were based on a final sample of 92 participants.

Study drop-outs were similar to completers in most baseline characteristics. Compared with completers, smaller proportions of drop-outs reported a slip or trip in the past six months (5.9% vs. 29.3%; p = 0.04) or a fall, slip, or trip outside the home (0% vs. 28.2%; p = 0.04). Drop-outs had lower mean scores in general health perception (difference: 15.7; 95% CI: 4.8 to 26.5) and higher per-person costs of use of speech language pathologists (p = 0.02) and nurse practitioners (p = 0.02) in the past six months. All but one participant randomized to the intervention group (98%) received at least one home visit by a member of the interdisciplinary team. Nine additional clients discontinued the intervention early because of admission to a long-term care facility (n = 4), death (n = 3), or refusal to participate (n = 2) (Figure 1).

Baseline Characteristics

Baseline characteristics by treatment group for the 92 study participants retained in the six-month follow-up are shown in Table 1. Most baseline characteristics were similar in the two groups. Participants in the interdisciplinary group, compared with the usual-care group, reported fewer mean slips and trips (difference: –0.7; 95% CI: –2.5 to 1.1) but a similar mean number of falls in the past six months. The interdisciplinary group had a lower mean score in role functioning related to emotional health (difference: 15.27; 95% CI: 1.8 to 28.5), lower per-person costs of use of ophthalmologist (p = 0.03), and higher per-person cost to use day surgery (p = 0.03). Data were re-analyzed, adjusting for these variables, with no differences in results (data not shown).

Of the 92 participants who completed the study, 72 per cent reported at least one fall in the six months preceding the study, 45 per cent reported a fear of falling, and 74 per cent indicated that they were unsteady on their feet. Most participants (76%) had two or more of these risk factors for falls that defined the target sample for the study. Twenty-six participants (28.3%) reported at least one slip or trip in the six months preceding the study. Approximately 80 per cent of falls, slips, or trips resulted in injury including hip or other fracture (40%); cuts, scrapes, or abrasions (35%); bruising (29%); or other minor injuries (22%). One half of these incidents resulted in hospitalization, with an average stay length of 32 days.

Primary Outcome: Number of Falls at 6 Months

Of the 92 participants who completed the study, 48 (52.2%) reported a total of 128 falls in the 6 months after randomization, including 93 injury falls, 26 fracture falls, and 33 hospitalized falls (note that these fall types are not mutually exclusive). In the two groups combined, the mean number of falls in the last six-month period decreased by 19 per cent from 1.72 at baseline to 1.39 at six months. The interdisciplinary and usual-home-care groups did not differ in mean number of falls at six months (1.45 vs. 1.33, p = 0.70) or change in mean number of falls (–0.31 vs. –0.35, difference: 0.04, 95% CI: –1.18 to 1.27) (see Table 2). In addition, there was no difference between the two groups in the number and type of fall-related injuries.

Table 2: Group comparisons of fall and fall-related risk factors at baseline and six-month follow-up

* Kruskal–Wallis Test

a Time 1 (T1): Baseline

b Time 2 (T2): Six-month follow-up

c Numbers do not add to 92 as a result of missing scores (n = 12)

d Numbers do not add to 92 as a result of missing scores (n = 7)

M = mean

SD = standard deviation

Secondary Outcomes: Risk Factors for Falls at Six Months

Slips and Trips

Of the 92 participants who completed the study, 28 (30.4%) reported a total of 300 slips or trips in the six months after randomization. The mean number of slips or trips in the past six- month period decreased by 46 per cent in the interdisciplinary group (from 1.14 at baseline to 0.61 at six months) but increased more than threefold in the usual-home-care group (from 1.84 to 6.28) (p = 0.03). The change in mean number of slips or trips was –0.53 in the interdisciplinary group, compared with 4.44 in the usual-home-care group (difference: –4.97, 95% CI: –10.78 to 0.84) (p = 0.03) (see Table 2).

Functional Health Status and Related Quality of Life

From baseline to the six-month follow-up, both groups improved in most SF-36 dimensions of functional health status and related quality of life, with no significant difference between groups. The interdisciplinary group showed greater improvement in role functioning related to emotional health than the usual-care group, although this difference did not reach statistical significance (p = 0.054; difference: 14.13, 95% CI: –0.28 to 28.54). Participants in the interdisciplinary group also had greater improvements in bodily pain and energy/vitality that were clinically important, but not significant. A difference of five points between groups for a domain of the SF-36 is considered clinically and socially important (Ware et al., Reference Ware, Snow, Kosinski and Gandek1993).

Nutritional Status

The SCREEN II mean score improved in the two groups combined by 3.4 per cent (from 45.58 at baseline to 47.14 at six months). This difference translated into a 20 per cent reduction in the number of clients at nutritional risk (< 54 out of 64 on SCREEN II). The change in nutritional risk mean score did not differ between the two groups (p = 0.47).

Depression

At six months, the depressive-symptom mean score decreased overall by 25.3 per cent (from 11.83 to 8.84). This translated into an 11 per cent reduction in the number of clients with depression (≥ 21 out of 60 on the CES-D). The change in depressive-symptom mean score did not differ statistically or clinically between the two groups (p = 0.52).

Gait and Balance

Gait and balance mean score increased in the two groups combined by 11.6 per cent (from 18.47 to 20.62). This translated into a 15 per cent reduction in the number of clients at high risk for falls (< 25 out of 28 on POMA). The change in gait and balance mean score did not differ statistically or clinically between the two groups (p = 0.57).

Cognitive Function

Cognitive function mean score decreased overall by 0.9 per cent (from 27.26 to 27.01). This translated into a 2.3 per cent increase in the number of clients with cognitive impairment (≤ 25 out of 30 on SMMSE). The change in cognitive function mean score did not differ between the two groups (p = 0.40).

Confidence in Performing Activities of Daily Living

The level of confidence in performing ADLs without falling increased in the two groups combined by 24.2 per cent (from 5.04 to 6.26). The change in MFES mean score did not differ statistically or clinically between the two groups (p = 0.98).

Cost of Use of Health Services

The mean six-month costs of use of all types of health services decreased overall by 78.3 per cent (from $22,956 at baseline to $4,973 at six months). The change in total per-person direct costs of use of health services did not differ between the two groups (p = 0.41). The interdisciplinary group had higher per-person costs of use of registered dietitians (p = 0.02), occupational therapists (p < 0.001), and supplies (p = 0.03). These increases in costs were offset by lower costs of use of dentists (p = 0.01), and lower costs of use of surgeons, chiropractors, psychologists, optometrists, podiatrists, and prescription medications compared with the usual-home-care group; however, these differences were not statistically significant. There was no difference between groups in use of any other type of health service, including acute hospitalization for a fall (p = 0.39) (see Table 3).

Table 3: Group comparisons of selected six-month costs of use of health services at baseline and six-month follow-up

M = mean

SD = standard deviation

Sub-group Analysis

The a priori hypothesis for evaluating differences in number of falls during the six-month follow-up included examining characteristics thought to influence fall risk. Variables with fewer than 10 participants per sub-group were excluded from the sub-group analysis. The findings indicate that an interdisciplinary team approach is more effective than usual home care in reducing the number of falls in males (p = 0.009), 75 to 84 years of age (p < 0.001), with a fear of falling (p < 0.001), or a negative history of falls in the six months preceding the study (p < 0.04) (see Table 4). The total per-person direct costs of use of health services did not differ between the participants in the sub-groups compared to similar participants in the control group.

Table 4: Subgroup analysis

M = mean

Discussion

The objective of the present study was to determine the effects and costs of a multifactorial, interdisciplinary team approach to falls prevention compared with usual home care services. To our knowledge, this is the first randomized controlled trial with an economic evaluation of the effects and costs of a multifactorial, interdisciplinary team approach to falls prevention for frail older home care clients at risk for falling, compared with usual home care services. This study is important because of the high prevalence of falls among older adults receiving home support services. The baseline fall rate of 72 per cent in the present sample greatly exceeds the fall rates of 30 per cent typically reported for representative samples of community-dwelling older adults (Kenny et al., Reference Kenny, Rubenstein, Martin and Tinetti2001; Speechley & Tinetti, Reference Speechley and Tinetti1991). This setting is also important because it represents the logical target for any initiatives to improve the early identification and management of falls and fall risk factors.

We found that a multifactorial, interdisciplinary team approach to falls prevention, proactively provided to older people at risk for falling, 72 per cent of whom reported at least one fall in the previous six months, 56.5 per cent of whom suffered from four or more chronic health problems, and 82 per cent of whom were functionally limited, produced significant improvements in fall risk factors (slips and trips, health-related quality of life), and a reduction in the incidence of falls among males (≧75–84 years), with a fear of falling and a negative history of falls. Notably, these improvements were achieved at no additional cost to society as a whole, thus making the intervention highly feasible given its clinical benefits. Although we did not directly measure the acceptability of the intervention, the high engagement rate (98%) and low “dropout” rate (9%) over the six-month study period suggests that this approach is highly acceptable to this population. This study demonstrates that, with modest reorganization of the delivery of existing home services, giving greater priority to interdisciplinary care and prevention, significant enhancements in patient safety and quality of life can result. Previous studies have focused only on the use of institutional care and home care services as measures of cost (Close et al., Reference Close, Ellis, Hooper, Glucksman, Jackson and Swift1999; Rizzo et al., Reference Rizzo, Baker, McAvay and Tinetti1996). Our study is unique in that it measured use and costs of the full range of health services.

The results of this study add to the growing evidence for the effectiveness of multifactorial falls prevention programs for older adults in reducing falls and fall-related risk factors (Clemson et al., Reference Clemson, Cummings, Kendig, Swann, Heard and Taylor2004; Close et al., Reference Close, Ellis, Hooper, Glucksman, Jackson and Swift1999; Gillespie et al., Reference Gillespie, Gillespie, Robertson, Lamb, Cumming and Rowe2003; Robson et al., Reference Robson, Edwards, Gallagher and Baker2002; Steinberg et al., Reference Steinberg, Cartwright, Peel and Williams2000; Tinetti et al., Reference Tinetti, Baker, McAvay, Claus, Garrett and Gottschalk1994; Wagner et al., Reference Wagner, LaCroix, Grothaus, Leveille, Hecht and Artz1994). However, the home care settings targeted in this study serve a considerably frailer group of seniors than the general population of community-dwelling seniors. Such people are often excluded from community-based studies of the effectiveness of multifactorial falls prevention programs. Thus, this study makes an important contribution by providing knowledge of the effectiveness of multifactorial falls prevention among a much frailer group of seniors than recruited in previous studies.

The baseline characteristics of our sample indicate that we reached our intended target group – older adults at risk for falling. Two thirds of our sample had two or more of the leading risk factors for falls: fall within the previous 12 months, fear of falling or unsteadiness on their feet. Thus, the results also lend support for the effectiveness of falls prevention programs targeted to populations at risk (Gillespie et al., Reference Gillespie, Gillespie, Robertson, Lamb, Cumming and Rowe2003; Tinetti et al., Reference Tinetti, Baker, McAvay, Claus, Garrett and Gottschalk1994). Categorizing individuals into different levels of risk is important from both clinical and economic perspectives because it is the seniors with the highest risk of falling who will benefit most from preventive efforts and from avoiding the negative consequences of falls.

After six months, compared with the baseline, participants in the interdisciplinary group reported a greater improvement in role functioning related to emotional health than the usual-home-care participants. Given the lower level of role functioning in the interdisciplinary group at baseline, this is a clinically important gain. At six months, the interdisciplinary group reported 47 per cent fewer slips and trips than at baseline, compared with a more than threefold increase in the usual home care group (p = 0.03). Our findings are consistent with those of previous studies, which have reported significant improvements in health-related quality of life and function (Close et al., Reference Close, Ellis, Hooper, Glucksman, Jackson and Swift1999; Lightbody et al., Reference Lightbody, Watkins, Leathley, Sharma and Lye2002; Lin et al., Reference Lin, Wolf, Hwang, Gong and Chen2007; Wagner et al., Reference Wagner, LaCroix, Grothaus, Leveille, Hecht and Artz1994) and a reduction in slips and trips (Steinberg et al., Reference Steinberg, Cartwright, Peel and Williams2000) with a multifactorial approach. These findings are noteworthy, given that slips and trips and poor quality of life and function are two of the most common predictors of falls (Speechley & Tinetti, Reference Speechley and Tinetti1991).

One possible explanation for the improvement in health-related quality of life and function is that many of the risk factors for falls also contribute to functional decline and reduced quality of life (Sjösten et al., Reference Sjösten, Vaapio and Kivelä2008). Consequently, a multifactorial approach targeted to reduce these risk factors could result in reductions in falls as well as improvements in health.

A unique contribution of our study was its focus on both falls and near falls (slips or trips). Although falls among older adults have been studied extensively, data are limited on the prevalence of slips and trips and the prevention of such incidents in this age group (Steinberg et al., Reference Steinberg, Cartwright, Peel and Williams2000). Yet, the most common circumstances leading to falls are slips and trips. It has been proposed that there is a continuum from slips and trips, wherein balance is regained, through near falls, to complete falls when balance is lost (Steinberg et al.). Because both seniors and health care providers focus on the consequences of falls, non-injurious falls may be disregarded (Gallagher & Brunt, Reference Gallagher and Brunt1996). Our findings suggest that it would be beneficial for the health care system to focus attention on warning signs such as slips or trips. However, future research is necessary to determine whether improvements in these risk factors for falls lead to reductions in subsequent falls. If slips and trips have an effect on falls incidence, this would also suggest an earlier point of intervention on the continuum of falls (Steinberg et al.).

The study findings provide important information regarding which specific sub-groups of older home care clients benefited most from a multifactorial, interdisciplinary team approach to falls prevention. Few trials on the effectiveness of multifactorial falls prevention programs have examined which sub-groups of older adults benefit most from the intervention (Clemson et al., Reference Clemson, Cummings, Kendig, Swann, Heard and Taylor2004; Hornbrook et al., Reference Hornbrook, Steven, Wingfield, Hollis, Greenlick and Ory1994; Nikolaus & Bach, Reference Nikolaus and Bach2003; Shaw et al., Reference Shaw, Bond, Richardson, Dawson, Steen and McKeith2003). As a result, it is difficult to distinguish whether the differences in effectiveness are attributable to variations in the type of intervention or to characteristics of the samples. The subgroup analyses in this study suggested that the intervention was more effective in men (p = 0.009), 75 to 84 years of age (p < 0.001), who had a fear of falling (p < 0.001), or a negative history of falls in the months preceding the study (p < 0.04). In these subgroups, the number of falls could be reduced significantly by interdisciplinary team intervention at no additional cost.

The finding that the intervention was more effective in men than women is consistent with those of previous studies (Clemson et al., Reference Clemson, Cummings, Kendig, Swann, Heard and Taylor2004), and may reflect the fact that it was more attractive to this population. Another explanation is that, in general, men are less active in health activities and seeking knowledge than women. Therefore, they may have had a greater initial readiness, resulting in a much greater uptake and receptivity to the strategies affected by the interdisciplinary team (Clemson et al.).

The finding that the intervention was more effective for seniors with a fear of falling is noteworthy because fear of falling is highly prevalent among seniors and is considered to be one of the leading risk factors for falling with effects on functional health status and related quality of life (Sjösten et al., Reference Sjösten, Vaapio and Kivelä2008). One possible explanation for the superiority of the multifactorial, interdisciplinary approach in this subgroup is that falls, and fear of falling, have multifactorial causes and actually share many risk factors (e.g., gait and balance problems, depressive symptoms, and poor cognition). Consequently, a multifactorial approach targeted to reduce several risk factors simultaneously may be more beneficial than a single-focused approach.

The finding that the intervention was more effective for seniors with a negative history of falls in the six months preceding the study is consistent with those of previous studies (Clemson et al., Reference Clemson, Cummings, Kendig, Swann, Heard and Taylor2004; Hornbrook et al., Reference Hornbrook, Steven, Wingfield, Hollis, Greenlick and Ory1994). One hypothesis is that the intervention was more effective for seniors with a negative history of falls because they had higher levels of physical, social, and psychological functioning compared with fallers (Markle-Reid et al., Reference Markle-Reid, Miles, Vaitonis, Henderson, Anderson and Baxter2008a). Individuals with lower functional levels normally are apt to need more support and receive it (Markle-Reid, Weir, Browne, Roberts, Gafni, & Henderson, Reference Markle-Reid, Weir, Browne, Roberts, Gafni and Henderson2008b). This may have reduced the differences between the two groups. It is equally likely that the intervention was less effective for seniors with a history of falls because the modifications of risk factors in this complex population may not have been large enough or may have been focused on the wrong type and so did not affect falls in this sub-group. Home care services often are put into place to compensate for and help people cope with irreparable physical decline associated with advanced chronic disease and the aging process in later life. The limited effectiveness of the intervention in this sub-group may as likely reflect that reality as the possibility that services are not achieving outcomes.

The finding that the intervention was more effective for younger seniors (75–84 years) than older seniors (> 85 years) or individuals who did report a fall suggests the need for a more upstream approach to falls prevention, targeting a younger population at an earlier point along the continuum of falls to prevent the onset of falls. Overall, these findings suggest that limited home care resources may be used more effectively if targeted toward males (≥75–84 years), with a fear of falling and a negative history of falls.

Implications

Our study adds to the accumulating evidence showing that high functioning interdisciplinary teams – those that have the client at the centre, communicate easily and frequently, have shared objectives and clear roles and responsibilities, and conduct interdependent decision making – improve the quality of care and reduce adverse events among seniors with chronic conditions (Barrett, Curran, Glynn, & Godwin, 2007; Canadian Health Services Research Foundation, 2005; Ontario Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care, Health Human Resources Strategy Division, 2007). Given the multifactorial nature of falls, people with multiple chronic conditions are best served by an interdisciplinary group of professionals with complementary skills to address the bio-psychosocial determinants of falls (World Health Organization, 2005).

The findings of this study also confirm that early, proactive, and comprehensive care for people with chronic needs is both more effective and no more expensive in a system of national health insurance than providing services on a limited, reactive, and piecemeal basis (Browne, Roberts, Gafni, Byrne, Weir, Majumdar et al., Reference Browne, Roberts, Gafni, Byrne, Weir and Majumdar1999; Browne et al., Reference Browne, Roberts, Byrne, Gafni, Weir and Majumdar2001; Markle-Reid, Weir, Browne, Roberts, Gafni, & Henderson, Reference Markle-Reid, Weir, Browne, Roberts, Gafni and Henderson2006a, Reference Markle-Reid, Weir, Browne, Roberts, Gafni and Henderson2006b). Given that the annual cost of health services use was $11,500 per person higher for fallers compared with non-fallers (Markle-Reid et al., Reference Markle-Reid, Miles, Vaitonis, Henderson, Anderson and Baxter2008a), a program targeted to this at-risk group of frail seniors has the potential for significant cost savings from a societal perspective. A falls prevention intervention that achieves a reduction in falls could result in enough costs savings to pay for the intervention. It also has the potential to reduce the human cost of a fall, which can include loss of independence and confidence, low self-esteem, depression, chronic pain, functional deterioration, fractures, or death.

The study results support and extend the literature regarding best-practice guidelines for providing falls prevention to older people at risk for falls. A multifactorial approach to falls prevention should target individuals at risk (Tinetti et al., Reference Tinetti, Baker, McAvay, Claus, Garrett and Gottschalk1994); use a variety of strategies that are tailored to an individual’s risk profile (Gillespie et al., Reference Gillespie, Gillespie, Robertson, Lamb, Cumming and Rowe2003; Kenny et al., Reference Kenny, Rubenstein, Martin and Tinetti2001); involve substantial realignment of roles and scopes of practice; formalize mechanisms for communication among health care providers; improve integration between home care and primary care (Leatt et al., Reference Leatt, Pink and Guerriere2000); include regular follow-ups using validated screening instruments and evidence-based practice guidelines; and involve providers with formal training in falls prevention, referral to and coordination of community services, and continuity of care provider (Gillespie et al., Reference Gillespie, Gillespie, Robertson, Lamb, Cumming and Rowe2003; Markle-Reid et al., Reference Markle-Reid, Weir, Browne, Roberts, Gafni and Henderson2006a).

Limitations of the Study

Although the randomized design and high engagement and follow-up rates were major strengths of this study, several limitations must be considered when examining our study results. Despite concerted efforts, we were only able to recruit and randomize 41 per cent of eligible clients. Thus, our sample might not have been truly representative of the population at risk. Future research is warranted to identify the most-effective strategies for recruiting at-risk seniors who are truly in need of falls prevention interventions.

There may have been an under reporting of falls since reluctance to report falls among older people has been observed. They may fear loss of an independent lifestyle and the associated stigma of aging (Gallagher & Brunt, Reference Gallagher and Brunt1996). Further, recall bias due to forgetfulness and memory impairment might also have led to under-reporting (Cummings, Nevitt, & Kidd, Reference Cummings, Nevitt and Kidd1988). More studies are needed to develop and test strategies to maximize the likelihood that seniors report all falling events.

Although the calendar and monthly telephone contacts were designed primarily to record outcomes, it is possible that their use might also have constituted an intervention in its own right. If the control participants benefited from these contacts, this minor intervention would have diluted the treatment effect and decreased the differences between groups. Further research is needed to confirm the effect of this strategy on its own as an effective preventive intervention. If confirmed, it has the potential to be a low-cost, sustainable approach to decreasing falls and near falls among older people (Steinberg et al., Reference Steinberg, Cartwright, Peel and Williams2000).

Only the immediate effects of the intervention were observed. Further research is needed to determine if the effects of the intervention are sustained over longer periods of time. The finding that there was no difference between groups in per-person costs of use of health services may be because of an insufficient sample size and limited power to detect differences. Future trials with an economic evaluation are needed that have sufficient power to detect cost differences. Lastly, the results reflect what happened in two home care programs, which may or may not be representative of other home care environments. The generalizability of the results to the wider population of older people depends on the extent to which the services under study are available and the criteria for service provision are comparable in different areas.

Conclusions

With the rapid increase in the number of seniors living in the community, falls and fall-related injuries are becoming a serious problem that, without intervention, will place extensive burdens on health care resources (SmartRisk, 2006). Home care has the potential to play a pivotal role in preventing falls and enhancing the quality of life of older people with chronic needs. Our study shows that a multifactorial, interdisciplinary team approach is more effective and no more expensive than usual home care in improving quality of life, reducing the incidence of slips and trips, and reducing falls among males (≥ 75–84 years), with a fear of falling and a negative history of falls. Such an approach is highly acceptable to this population, and can be implemented in a home care setting using existing resources. Home care policy makers, agencies, and funders should work together to ensure that an interdisciplinary team approach is available to the subgroups of seniors who could benefit from it most to reduce future falls, enhance quality of life, and reduce the on-demand use of expensive health services.

Footnotes

*

We are grateful to the following agencies for funding this project from 2005 to 2008: Canadian Patient Safety Institute (CPSI – Grant Number RFAAA0506164), Community Care Access Centre of Halton, McMaster University System-Linked Research Unit on Health and Social Services Utilization, and Ontario Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care. Maureen Markle-Reid is a Career Scientist, Ontario Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care, Health Research Personnel Development Fund. This research was possible through the ongoing support of the Community Care Access Centre of Halton, Hamilton Niagara Haldimand Brant Community Care Access Centre, Mississauga Halton Community Care Access Centre, Halton Region Health Department, Community Rehab, Ellen Williams, Brant Arts Dispensary, and Dr. Heather H. Keller, Department of Family Relations and Applied Human Nutrition, Macdonald Institute, University of Guelph. We are also grateful to the following individuals: Darlene Lane (project coordination), Leah Macdonald (data entry), Maria Wong (data analysis), and Rachel Harvey (administrative support).

Trial Registration:clinicaltrials.gov identifier: NCT00463658.

References

Barrett, J.V., Curran, V., Glynn, L., & Godwin, M. (2007). CHSRF decision support synthesis: Interprofessional collaboration and quality primary healthcare. Ottawa, Ontario, Canada: Canadian Health Services Research Foundation. Retrieved June 30, 2008, from http://www.chsrf.ca/research_themes/documents/SynthesisReport_E_rev4_FINAL_000.pdfGoogle Scholar
Bergman, H., Beland, F., Lebel, P., Contandriopoulos, A., Tousignant, P., Brunelle, Y., et al. . (1997). Caring for Canada’s frail elderly population: Fragmentation or integration? Canadian Medical Association Journal, 157(8), 11161120.Google ScholarPubMed
Browne, G., Gafni, A., & Roberts, J. (2006). Approach to the measurement of resource use and costs (Working Paper S06-01). Hamilton, Ontario, Canada: McMaster University, System-Linked Research Unit on Health and Social Service Utilization.Google Scholar
Browne, G., Roberts, J., Byrne, C., Gafni, A., Weir, R., & Majumdar, B. (2001). The costs and effects of addressing the needs of vulnerable populations: Results of 10 years of research. Canadian Journal of Nursing Research, 33, 6576.Google ScholarPubMed
Browne, G., Roberts, J., Gafni, A., Byrne, C., Weir, R., Majumdar, B., et al. . (1999). Economic evaluations of community-based care: Lessons from twelve studies in Ontario. Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice, 5, 367385.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bueno-Cavanillas, A., Padilla-Ruiz, F., Jiménez-Moleón, C.A., Peinado-Alonso, C.A., & Gálvez-Vargas, R. (2000). Risk factors in falls among the elderly according to extrinsic and intrinsic precipitating causes. European Journal of Epidemiology, 16(9), 849859.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Canadian Health Services Research Foundation. (2005). Interdisciplinary teams in primary healthcare can effectively manage chronic illnesses. Ottawa, Ontario, Canada: Canadian Health Services Research Foundation Retrieved May 10, 2008, from http://www.chsrf.ca/mythbusters/html/boost3_e.pdfGoogle Scholar
Canadian Home Care Association. (2003). Portraits of home care: A picture of progress and innovation. Ottawa, Ontario, Canada: Canadian Home Care Association.Google Scholar
Canadian Institutes for Health Information. (2002). Falls leading cause of injury admissions to Canada’s acute care hospitals. Ottawa, Ontario, Canada: Canadian Institutes for Health Information. Retrieved August 18, 2006, from http://www.cihi.ca/cihiweb/dispPage.jsp?cw_page=media_27feb2002_eGoogle Scholar
Canadian Institutes for Health Information. (2004). Ontario trauma registry report: Injury hospitalizations, 2002/2003. Ottawa, Ontario, Canada: Canadian Institutes for Health Information. Retrieved May 10, 2008, from http://secure.cihi.ca/cihiweb/dispPage.jsp?cw_page=PG_128_E&cw_topic=128&cw_rel=AR_7_EGoogle Scholar
Canadian Institutes of Health Research, Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada, Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada (1998, with 2000, 2002, 2005 amendments). Tri-council policy statement: Ethical conduct for research involving humans. Retrieved May 10, 2008, from http://www.pre.ethics.gc.ca/english/policystatement/policystatement.cfmGoogle Scholar
Chang, J.T., Morton, S.C., Rubenstein, L.Z., Mojica, W.A., Maglione, M., Suttorp, M.J., et al. . (2004). Interventions for the prevention of falls in older adults: Systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised clinical trials. British Medical Journal, 328, 680.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Clemson, L., Cummings, R.G., Kendig, H., Swann, M., Heard, R., & Taylor, K. (2004). The effectiveness of a community-based program for reducing the incidence of falls in the elderly: A randomized trial. Journal of the American Geriatrics Society, 52(9), 14871494.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Close, J., Ellis, M., Hooper, R., Glucksman, E., Jackson, S., & Swift, C. (1999). Prevention of falls in the elderly trial (PROFET): A randomized controlled trial. Lancet, 353, 9397.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cummings, R.S., Nevitt, M.C., & Kidd, S. (1988). Forgetting falls: The limited accuracy of recall of falls in the elderly. Journal of the American Geriatrics Society, 36, 613616.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Day, L., Fildes, B., Gordon, I., Fitzharris, M., Flamer, H., & Lord, S. (2002). Randomized factorial trial of falls prevention among older people living in their own homes. British Medical Journal, 325, 16.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Drummond, M.F., O’Brien, B., Stoddart, G.L., & Torrance, G.W. (1997). Methods for the economic evaluation of health care programmes (2nd ed.). Toronto, Ontario, Canada: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Fleiss, J.L. (1981). Statistical methods for rates and proportions. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
Fletcher, P.C., & Hirdes, J.P. (2004). Restriction in activity associated with fear of falling among community-based seniors using home care services. Age and Ageing, 33, 273279.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Folstein, M., Folstein, S., & McHugh, P. (1975). Mini-mental state: A practical method for grading the cognitive status of patients for the clinician. Journal of Psychiatric Research, 12, 189198.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Forster, A.J., Murff, H.J., Peterson, J.F., Gandhi, T.K., & Bates, D.W. (2003). The incidence and severity of adverse events affecting patients after discharge from the hospital. Annals of Internal Medicine, 138, 161167.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gallagher, E., & Brunt, H. (1996). Head over heels: Impact of a health promotion program to reduce falls in the elderly. Canadian Journal on Aging, 15(1), 8496.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gillespie, L.D., Gillespie, W.J., Robertson, M.C., Lamb, S.E., Cumming, R.G., & Rowe, B.H. (2003). Interventions for preventing falls in elderly people (Cochrane Review). Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, 4, CD000340.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Guerriere, D.N., Ungar, W.J., Corey, M., Croxford, R., Tranmer, J.E., Tullis, E., et al. . (2006). Evaluation of the ambulatory and home care record: Agreement between self-reports and administrative data. International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care, 22(2), 203210.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
van Haastregt, J.C.M., Diederiks, M., van Rossum, E., de Witte, L.P., Voorhoeve, P.M., & Crebolder, F.J.M. (2000). Effects of a program of multifactorial home visits on falls and mobility impairments in elderly people at risk: A randomized controlled trial. British Medical Journal, 321, 994998.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hill, K.D., Schwartz, J.A., Kalogeropoulos, A.J., & Gibson, S.J. (1996). Fear of falling revisited. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, 77(10), 10251029.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hollander, M.J. (2003). Unfinished business: The case for chronic home care services, a policy paper. Victoria, British Columbia, Canada: Hollander Analytical Services Ltd. Retrieved June 28, 2008, from http://www.hollanderanalytical.com/downloads/unfinished_business.pdfGoogle Scholar
Hornbrook, M., Steven, V., Wingfield, D., Hollis, J., Greenlick, M., & Ory, M. (1994). Preventing falls among community-dwelling older persons: Results from a randomized trial. The Gerontologist, 34(1), 1623.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Johri, M., Beland, F., & Bergman, H. (2003). International experiments in integrated care for the elderly: A synthesis of the evidence. International Journal of Geriatric Psychology, 18, 222235.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Keller, H.H., Goy, R., & Kane, S.L. (2005). Validity and reliability of SCREEN II (Seniors in the community: Risk evaluation for eating and nutrition, Version II). European Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 59, 11491157.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kenny, R.A., Rubenstein, L.Z., Martin, F.C., & Tinetti, M.E. (2001). Guideline for the prevention of falls in older persons. Journal of the American Geriatrics Society, 49(5), 664672.Google Scholar
Kingston, P., Jones, M., Lally, F., & Crome, P. (2001). Older people and falls: A randomized controlled trial of a health visitor (HV) intervention. Reviews in Clinical Gerontology, 11, 209214.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kukull, W.A., Larson, E.B., Teri, L., Bowen, J., McCormick, W., & Pfanschmidt, M.L. (1994). The mini-mental state examination score and the clinical diagnosis of dementia. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 47, 10611067.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Leatt, P., Pink, G.H., & Guerriere, M. (2000). Towards a Canadian model of integrated healthcare. Health Care Papers, 1(2), 1335.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lightbody, E., Watkins, C., Leathley, M., Sharma, A., & Lye, M. (2002). Evaluation of a nurse-led falls prevention program versus usual care: A randomized controlled trial. Age and Ageing, 31, 203210.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lin, M.-R., Wolf, S.L., Hwang, H.-F., Gong, S.-Y., & Chen, C.-Y. (2007). A randomized, controlled trial of fall prevention program and quality of life in older fallers. Journal of the American Geriatrics Society, 55(4), 499506.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lord, S.R., Ward, J.A., Williams, P., & Anstey, K. (1994). Physiological factors associated with falls in older community-dwelling women. Journal of the American Geriatrics Society, 42, 11101117.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
MacAdam, M. (2000). Home care: It’s time for a Canadian model. Hospital Quarterly and Healthcare papers, 1(4), 936.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Markle-Reid, M., Henderson, S., Anderson, M., Baxter, P., Hecimovich, C., Browne, G., et al. . (2007). Reducing fall risk for frail older home care clients using a multifactorial and interdisciplinary team approach: The design of a randomized controlled trial. Journal of Patient Safety, 3(3), 149157.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Markle-Reid, M., Miles, M., Vaitonis, V., Henderson, S., Anderson, M., Baxter, P., et al. . (2008a). The comparative effects and expense of a proactive, nurse-led, multifactorial and interdisciplinary team approach to falls prevention for older at-risk home care clients. Final Research Report to the Canadian Patient Safety Institute. Edmonton, Ontario, Canada: Canadian Patient Safety Institute. Retrieved January 8, 2010 from http://www.patientsafetyinstitute.ca/English/research/cpsiResearchCompetitions/2005/Pages/Markle-Reid.aspx.Google Scholar
Markle-Reid, M., Weir, R., Browne, G., Roberts, J., Gafni, A., & Henderson, S. (2006a). The effectiveness and efficiency of home-based nursing health promotion for older people: A review of the literature. Medical Care Research and Review, 63, 531569.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Markle-Reid, M., Weir, R., Browne, G., Roberts, J., Gafni, A., & Henderson, S. (2006b). Health promotion for frail older home care clients. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 54, 381395.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Markle-Reid, M., Weir, R., Browne, G., Roberts, J., Gafni, A., & Henderson, S. (2008b). Seniors at risk: The association between the 6-month use of publicly funded home support services and quality of life and use of health services for older people. Canadian Journal on Aging, 27, 207224.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Masud, T., & Morris, R.O. (2001). Epidemiology of falls. Age and Ageing, 30(S4), 37.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Miller, W.R., & Rollnick, S. (2002). Motivational interviewing: Preparing people for change (2nd ed.). New York: The Guilford Press.Google Scholar
Moher, D., Schulz, K.F., & Altman, D.; for the CONSORT Group. (2001). The CONSORT statement: Revised recommendations for improving the quality of reports of parallel-group randomized trials. Journal of the American Medical Association, 357, 11911194.Google Scholar
National Steering Committee on Patient Safety. (2002). Building a safer system: A national integrated strategy for improving patient safety in Canadian health care. Ottawa, Ontario, Canada: National Steering Committee on Patient Safety. Retrieved May 10, 2008, from http://rcpsc.medical.org/publications/building_a_safer_system_e.pdfGoogle Scholar
Nikolaus, T., & Bach, M. (2003). Preventing falls in community-dwelling frail older people using a home intervention team (HIT): Results from the randomized Falls-Hit trial. Journal of the American Geriatrics Society, 53(3), 300305.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
O’Loughlin, J.L., Robitaille, Y., Boivin, J.F., & Suisa, S. (1993). Incidence of and risk factors for falls and injurious falls among community-dwelling elderly. American Journal of Epidemiology, 137(3), 342354.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ontario Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care, Health Human Resources Strategy Division. (2007). Interprofessional care: A blueprint for action in Ontario. Ottawa, Ontario, Canada: Ontario Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care. Retrieved May 10, 2008, from http://www.healthforceontario.ca/upload/en/whatishfo/ipc%20blueprint%20final.pdfGoogle Scholar
Petrou, S., Murray, L., Cooper, P., & Davidson, L.L. (2002). The accuracy of self-reported healthcare resource utilization in health economic studies. International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care, 18(3), 705740.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Radloff, L.S. (1977). The CES-D scale: A self-report depression scale for research in the general population. Applied Psychological Measurement, 1, 385401.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Registered Nurses’ Association of Ontario. (2005). Nursing best practice guideline: Prevention of fall injuries in the older adult. Toronto, Ontario, Canada: Registered Nurses’ Association of Ontario Nursing Best Practice Guidelines Program. Retrieved May 10, 2008, from http://www.rnao.org/Storage/12/617_BPG_Falls_rev05.pdfGoogle Scholar
Rizzo, J.A., Baker, D.I., McAvay, G., & Tinetti, M.E. (1996). The cost-effectiveness of a multifactorial targeted prevention program for falls among community elderly persons. Medical Care, 34, 954969.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Robson, E., Edwards, J., Gallagher, E., & Baker, D. (2002). Steady as you go (SAYGO): A falls-prevention program for seniors living in the community. Canadian Journal on Aging, 22(2), 207216.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Roos, N., Stranc, L., Peterson, S., Mitchell, L., Bogdanovic, B., & Shapiro, E. (2001). A look at home care in Manitoba. Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada: Manitoba Centre for Health Policy and Evaluation. Retrieved June 28, 2008, from http://mchp-appserv.cpe.umanitoba.ca/reference/homecare.pdfGoogle Scholar
Scott, V., Bawa, H., Votova, K., Rajabali, F., Han, G., Swan, L., et al. . (2006a). Strategies and action for independent living (SAIL) 2: The effectiveness of a multifaceted prevention program for the reduction of falls and injury among home support clients. Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada: BC Injury Research and Prevention Unit.Google Scholar
Scott, V.J., Votova, K., & Gallagher, E. (2006b). Falls prevention training for community health workers. Journal of Gerontological Nursing, 32(10), 4856.Google ScholarPubMed
Shaw, F.E., Bond, J., Richardson, D.A., Dawson, P., Steen, I.N., McKeith, I.G., et al. . (2003). Multifactorial interventions after a fall in older people with cognitive impairment and dementia presenting to the accident and emergency department: Randomized controlled trial. British Medical Journal, 326, 7375.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shumway-Cook, A., Silver, I.F., LeMier, M., York, S., Cummings, P., & Koepsell, T.D. (2007). Effectiveness of community-based multifactorial intervention on falls and fall risk factors in community-living older adults: A randomized, controlled trial. Journal of Gerontology, 62A(12), 14201427.Google Scholar
Sjösten, N., Vaapio, S., & Kivelä, S.L. (2008). The effects of fall prevention trials on depressive symptoms and fear of falling among the aged: A systematic review. Aging & Mental Health, 12(1), 3046.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
SmartRisk. (1998). The economic burden of unintentional injury in Canada. Toronto, Ontario, Canada: SmartRisk. Retrieved May 10, 2008, from http://www.smartrisk.ca/uploads/cf127134791602109375.pdfGoogle Scholar
SmartRisk. (2006). The economic burden of injury in Ontario. Toronto, Ontario, Canada: SmartRisk. Retrieved May 10, 2008, from http://207.35.157.99/burden/Ontario_Economic_Burden_of_Injury.pdfGoogle Scholar
Soderstrom, L., Tousignant, P., & Kaufman, T. (1999). The health and cost effects of substituting home care for inpatient acute care: A review of the evidence. Canadian Medical Association Journal, 160(8), 11511155.Google ScholarPubMed
Speechley, M., & Tinetti, M. (1991). Falls and injuries in frail and vigorous community elderly persons. Journal of the American Geriatrics Society, 39(1), 4652.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Steinberg, M., Cartwright, C., Peel, N., & Williams, G. (2000). A sustainable program to prevent falls and near falls in community-dwelling older people: Results of a randomized controlled trial. Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health, 54, 227232.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stuck, A.E., Walthert, J.M., Nikolaus, T., Bula, C.J., Hohmann, C., & Beck, J.C. (1999). Risk factors for functional status decline in community-living elderly people: A systematic literature review. Social Science and Medicine, 48, 445469.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Tinetti, M., & Powell, L. (1993). Fear of falling and self-efficacy: A cause of dependence in elderly persons. Journal of Gerontology, 48, 3539.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tinetti, M.E. (1986). Performance-oriented assessment of mobility problems in elderly patients. Journal of the American Geriatrics Society, 34, 119126.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Tinetti, M.E., Baker, D.I., McAvay, G., Claus, E.B., Garrett, P., Gottschalk, M., et al. . (1994). A multifactorial intervention to reduce the risk of falling among elderly people living in the community. New England Journal of Medicine, 331, 821827.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Tinetti, M.E., Speechley, M., & Ginter, S.F. (1988). Risk factors for falls among elderly persons living in the community. New England Journal of Medicine, 319, 17011707.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Todd, C., & Skelton, D. (2004). What are the main risk factors for falls among older people and what are the most effective interventions to prevent these falls? Copenhagen Ø, Denmark: Copenhagen WHO office. Retrieved May 25, 2008, from http://www.euro.who.int/document/E82552.pdfGoogle Scholar
Vetter, N.J., Lewis, P.A., & Ford, D. (1992). Can health visitors prevent fractures in elderly people? British Medical Journal, 304, 888890.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wagner, E.H., LaCroix, A.Z., Grothaus, L., Leveille, S.G., Hecht, J.A., Artz, K., et al. . (1994). Preventing disability and falls in older adults: A population-based randomized trial. American Journal of Public Health, 84, 18001806.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ware, J.E., Snow, K.K., Kosinski, M., & Gandek, B. (1993). SF-36 health survey: Manual and interpretation guide. Boston: The Health Institute, New England Medical Centre.Google Scholar
Watter, L.L., & Studensky, S.A. (1996). A clinical synthesis of falls intervention trials. Topics in Geriatric Rehabilitation, 11, 919.Google Scholar
Wilkins, K. (1999). Health care consequences of falls for seniors. Health Reports, 10(4), 4755. Statistics Canada. Retrieved May 10, 2008, from http://www.statcan.ca/english/studies/82-003/archive/1999/hrar1999010004s0a03.pdfGoogle ScholarPubMed
World Health Organization. (2005). Preparing a health care workforce for the 21st century: The challenge of chronic conditions. Retrieved May 10, 2008, from http://www.who.int/chp/knowledge/publications/workforce_report.pdfGoogle Scholar
Yates, S., & Dunnagan, T.A. (2001). Evaluating the effectiveness of a home-based risk reduction program for rural community-dwelling older adults. Journal of Gerontology, 56A(4), M226M230.Google Scholar
Figure 0

Figure 1: Study flow diagram

Figure 1

Table 1: Comparison of demographic, clinical, and social characteristics between treatment groups at baseline (study completers, n = 92)

Figure 2

Table 2: Group comparisons of fall and fall-related risk factors at baseline and six-month follow-up

Figure 3

Table 3: Group comparisons of selected six-month costs of use of health services at baseline and six-month follow-up

Figure 4

Table 4: Subgroup analysis