Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32466747›Full record

ArticleBMC geriatrics2020

Personal preferences of participation in fall prevention programmes: a descriptive study.

Lotte M Barmentloo, Branko F Olij, Vicki Erasmus, Dini Smilde, Yvonne Schoon, Suzanne Polinder

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in BMC geriatrics, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 20 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
20citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

20 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Risk Prediction and Interpretation for Fall Events Using Explainable AI and Large Language Models.Proceedings of the 2025 9th International Conference on Medical and Health Informatics. International Conference on Medical and Health Informatics (9th : 2025 : Kyoto, Japan) · 2025
    Article
  12. Optimizing and Implementing a Community-Based Group Fall Prevention Program: A Mixed Methods Study.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2024
    Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Lotte M BarmentlooDepartment of Public Health, Erasmus MC, University Medical Center Rotterdam, PO BOX 2040, 3000, CA, Rotterdam, The Netherlands. l.barmentloo@erasmusmc.nl.ORCID 0000-0003-2876-0557
Branko F OlijDepartment of Public Health, Erasmus MC, University Medical Center Rotterdam, PO BOX 2040, 3000, CA, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
Vicki ErasmusDepartment of Public Health, Erasmus MC, University Medical Center Rotterdam, PO BOX 2040, 3000, CA, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
Dini SmildeGENERO foundation, Rotterdam, the Netherlands.
Yvonne SchoonDepartment of Geriatric Medicine, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, the Netherlands.
Suzanne PolinderDepartment of Public Health, Erasmus MC, University Medical Center Rotterdam, PO BOX 2040, 3000, CA, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.

Funding

Fonds NutsOhra 102385
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundParticipation in fall prevention programmes is associated with lower risk of injurious falls among older adults. However participation rates in fall prevention interventions are low. The limited participation in fall prevention might increase with a preference based approach. Therefore, the aims of this study are to a) determine the personal preferences of older adults regarding fall prevention and b) explore the association between personal preferences and participation.

methodsWe assessed the personal preferences of older adults and the association between their preferences, chosen programme and participation level. Nine different programmes, with a focus on those best matching their personal preferences, were offered to participants. Twelve weeks after the start of the programme, participation was assessed by questionnaire. Logistic regression was performed to test the association between preferences and participation and an ANOVA was performed to assess differences between the number of preferences included in the chosen programme and participation level.

resultsOf the 134 participants, 49% preferred to exercise at home versus 43% elsewhere, 46% preferred to exercise alone versus 44% in a group and 41% indicated a programme must be free of charge while 51% were willing to pay. The combination of an external location, in a group and for a fee was preferred by 27%, whereas 26% preferred at home, alone and only for free. The presence of preferences or the extent to which the programme matched earlier preferences was not associated with participation.

conclusionDespite the fact that preferences can vary greatly among older adults, local programmes should be available for at least the two largest subgroups. This includes a programme at home, offered individually and for free. In addition, local healthcare providers should cooperate to increase the accessibility of currently available group programmes.

Indexed as

Accidental FallsExerciseAgedEthnicityExercise TherapyHumansAccidental fallsAgingExercisePatient preferencePrevention and control

Identifiers

PMID32466747
PMCPMC7254764

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.