Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 174

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

Characteristics and Effectiveness of Fall Prevention Programs in Nursing Homes: A Systematic Review and Meta‐Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

Vlaeyen, Ellen, Coussement, Joke, Leysens, Greet, Van der Elst, Elisa, Delbaere, Kim, Cambier, Dirk, Denhaerynck, Kris, Goemaere, Stefan, Wertelaers, Arlette, Dobbels, Fabienne, Dejaeger, Eddy, Milisen, Koen, the Center of Expertise for Fall and Fracture Prevention Flanders·2015·Journal of the American Geriatrics Society

Abstract

Objectives: To determine characteristics and effectiveness of prevention programs on fall‐related outcomes in a defined setting. Design: Systematic review and meta‐analysis. Setting: A clearly described subgroup of nursing homes defined as residential facilities that provide 24‐hour‐a‐day surveillance, personal care, and limited clinical care for persons who are typically elderly and infirm. Participants: Nursing home residents (N = 22,915). Measurements: The primary outcomes were number of falls, fallers, and recurrent fallers. Results: Thirteen studies met the inclusion criteria. Six fall prevention programs were single (one intervention component provided to the residents), one was multiple (two or more intervention components not customized to individual fall risk), and six were multifactorial (two or more intervention components customized to each resident's fall risk). Meta‐analysis found significantly fewer recurrent fallers in the intervention groups (4 studies, relative risk ( RR ) = 0.79, 95% confidence interval ( CI ) = 0.65–0.97) but no significant effect of the intervention on fallers (6 studies, RR = 0.97, 95% CI = 0.84–1.11) or falls (10 studies, RR = 0.93, 95% CI = 0.76–1.13). Multifactorial interventions significantly reduced falls (4 studies, RR = 0.67, 95% CI = 0.55–0.82) and the number of recurrent fallers (4 studies, RR = 0.79, CI = 0.65–0.97), whereas single or multiple interventions did not. Training and education showed a significant harmful effect in the intervention groups on the number of falls (2 studies, RR = 1.29, 95% CI = 1.23–1.36). Conclusion: This meta‐analysis failed to reveal a significant effect of fall prevention interventions on falls or fallers but, for the first time, showed that fall prevention interventions significantly reduced the number of recurrent fallers by 21%.

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/jgs.13254

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 174

Metadata

Authors
Vlaeyen, E., Coussement, J., Leysens, G., Van der Elst, E., Delbaere, K., Cambier, D., Denhaerynck, K., Goemaere, S., Wertelaers, A., Dobbels, F., Dejaeger, E., Milisen, K., & the Center of Expertise for Fall and Fracture Prevention Flanders
Venue
Journal of the American Geriatrics Society
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2015-02
Volume
63
Issue
2
Pages
211-221
ISSN
  • 0002-8614 (ISSN-L)
  • 1532-5415
OpenAlex
W2047742857
Cited by
174
References
2
FWCI
4.40
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: Characteristics and Effectiveness of Fall Prevention Programs in Nursing Homes: A Systematic Review and Meta‐Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1111/jgs.13254
The paper
Vlaeyen, E., Coussement, J., Leysens, G., Van der Elst, E., Delbaere, K., Cambier, D., Denhaerynck, K., Goemaere, S., Wertelaers, A., Dobbels, F., Dejaeger, E., Milisen, K., & the Center of Expertise for Fall and Fracture Prevention Flanders. (2015). Characteristics and Effectiveness of Fall Prevention Programs in Nursing Homes: A Systematic Review and Meta‐Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials. Journal of the American Geriatrics Society. https://doi.org/10.1111/jgs.13254

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.