Skip to main content

Table 2 Randomised controlled trials characteristics

From: Hospital falls prevention with patient education: a scoping review

Lead author (Year)SettingInterventionsEducation contentEducation delivery modesEducation design guiding principlesEducation outcomesEducation qualityFall outcomes
Aizen (2015) [52]Sub-acuteMultifactorial v Usual CareBehavioural and cognitive treatment with patient and family guidanceNot statedNot statedNot reported2/17 LowNo difference in falls (falls per 1000 bed days: experimental 1; control 2) (p = 0.11)
Ang (2011) [34]AcuteMultifactorial v Usual CareFalls education based on individual falls riskFace to face by nursesNot statedNot reported6/17 LowLess falls in experimental group than control group (p = 0.018)
Cumming (2008) [53]Acute, sub-acuteMultifactorial v Usual CareFalls education based on individual falls riskFace to face by nursesNot statedNot reported5/17 LowNo difference in falls (falls per 1000 bed days: experimental 9; control 9)
Dykes (2010) [54]AcuteMultifactorial v Usual CareFalls education based on individual falls risksHandoutYes. Handout designed to match consumer literacyNot reported4/17 LowLess falls in experimental than control group (falls per 1000 bed days: experimental 3; control 4) (p = 0.04)
Haines (2011) [22]Acute, sub-acuteGroup 1: Combination Group 2: Materials
Group 3: Usual Care
Education on falls, self-reflection of individual risk, falls strategies, goal settingFace to face by physiotherapist
Handout given by trained clinician
Combination of all
Yes. Content based on health belief model and consumer feedbackNot reported7/17 ModerateNo difference in falls (falls per 1000 bed days: combination 8; materials 8; control 9)
Hill (2009) [55]Acute, sub-acuteEducation of patient delivered by video v Education of patient delivered by handoutEducation on risk of falls and falls prevention strategiesHandout
Video
Yes. Content based on health belief model and utilising design and communication principlesYes. Video group identified more falls prevention strategies than handout group (p = 0.02).
Video group was more motivated and confident to reduce falls than handout group (p = 0.03)
8/17 ModerateNo falls outcome reported
Hill (2015) [38]Sub-acuteEducation of patient v Usual CareEducation on falls, cues to action and goal settingFace to face plus handout plus videoYes. Content based on health belief model and adult learning principlesNot reported11/17 ModerateLess falls in experimental group than control group (falls per 1000 bed days: experimental 8; control 14) (p = 0.03)
Kuhlenschmidt (2016) [31]AcuteEducation of patient v Usual CareEducation on fall risks, strategies and fear of falling, tailored to different risk categoriesFace to face plus handout plus video by research nursesNot statedYes. Risk perception changed more in the intervention group (p = 0.01)11/17 ModerateNo falls outcomes reported
Kiyoshi-Teo (2019) [56]AcuteEducation of patient v Usual careEducation on fall risks, strategies and prompting behaviour change and self-reflection of falls preventionFace to face plus handout by research nurseYes. Content based on motivational interviewing conceptYes. No significant difference between groups in confidence, falls prevention behaviours and patient engagement10/17 ModerateNo significant difference in falls (incidence rates per month: experimental 0.2029; control 0.2098)
van Gaal (2011) [57]AcuteMultifactorial v Usual CareEducation on falls preventionFace to face plus handout given by nursesNot statedNot reported2/17 LowLess falls in experimental group than control group (rate ratio 0.67)
  1. Footnote: Mutifactorial refers to two or more of the following: patient education, falls risk assessments, environmental modifications, devices, personal supervision, multidisciplinary reviews, medication reviews, falls risk communication aids, allied health and nursing input, rounding, staff training
\