Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 200

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Do Hospital Fall Prevention Programs Work? A Systematic Review

Oliver, David, Hopper, Adrian, Seed, Paul·2000·Journal of the American Geriatrics Society

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: To analyze published hospital fall prevention programs to determine whether there is any effect on fall rates. To review the methodological quality of those programs and the range of interventions used. To provide directions for further research. DESIGN: Systematic review of published hospital fall prevention programs. Meta‐analysis. METHODS: Keyword searches of Medline, CINAHL, monographs, and secondary references. All papers were included that described fall rates before and during intervention. Risk ratios and 95% Confidence Intervals (95% CI) were estimated and random effects meta‐analysis employed. Begg's test was applied to detect possible publication bias. Separate meta‐analysis regressions were performed to determine whether individual components of multifaceted interventions were effective. RESULTS: A total of 21 papers met the criteria (18 from North America), although only 10 contained sufficient data to allow calculation of confidence intervals. A rate ratio of <1 indicates a reduction in the fall rate, resulting from an intervention. Three were randomized controlled trials (pooled rate ratio 1.0 (CI 0.60, 1.68)), seven prospective studies with historical control (0.76 (CI 0.65, 0.88)). Pooled effect rate ratio from these 10 studies was 0.79 (CI 0.69, 0.89). The remaining 11 studies were prospective studies with historical control describing fall rates only. Individual components of interventions showed no significant benefit. DISCUSSION: The pooled effect of about 25% reduction in the fall rate may be a result of intervention but may also be biased by studies that used historical controls not allowing for historical trends in the fall rate before and during the intervention. The randomized controlled trials apparent lack of effect might be due to a change in practice when patients and controls were in the same unit at the same time during a study. Studies did not analyze compliance with the intervention or opportunity costs resulting from the intervention. Research and clinical programs in hospital fall prevention should pay more attention to study design and the nature of interventions.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/j.1532-5415.2000.tb03883.x

Cites

2 of 2 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 2 references

Cited by

See all 200

Metadata

Authors
Oliver, D., Hopper, A., & Seed, P.
Venue
Journal of the American Geriatrics Society
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2000-12
Volume
48
Issue
12
Pages
1679-1689
ISSN
  • 0002-8614 (ISSN-L)
  • 1532-5415
OpenAlex
W2065708908
Cited by
200
References
2
FWCI
3.00
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Do Hospital Fall Prevention Programs Work? A Systematic Review. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1111/j.1532-5415.2000.tb03883.x
The paper
Oliver, D., Hopper, A., & Seed, P. (2000). Do Hospital Fall Prevention Programs Work? A Systematic Review. Journal of the American Geriatrics Society. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1532-5415.2000.tb03883.x

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.