ReviewJMIR aging2021
The Value of Routinely Collected Data in Evaluating Home Assessment and Modification Interventions to Prevent Falls in Older People: Systematic Literature Review.
Review in JMIR aging, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Exploring Literature on Data Governance in the Health Care of Older Persons: Scoping Review.JMIR aging · 2025Article
- Contribution and legacy: a qualitative study of older people's attitudes about sharing their routinely collected health data for research purposes in New Zealand.BMC medical ethics · 2025Article
- Observational
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundFalls in older people commonly occur at home. Home assessment and modification (HAM) interventions can be effective in reducing falls; however, there are some concerns over the validity of evaluation findings. Routinely collected data could improve the quality of HAM evaluations and strengthen their evidence base.
objectiveThe aim of this study is to conduct a systematic review of the evidence of the use of routinely collected data in the evaluations of HAM interventions.
methodsWe searched the following databases from inception until January 31, 2020: PubMed, Ovid, CINAHL, OpenGrey, CENTRAL, LILACS, and Web of Knowledge. Eligible studies were those evaluating HAMs designed to reduce falls involving participants aged 60 years or more. We included study protocols and full reports. Bias was assessed using the Risk Of Bias In Non-Randomized Studies of Interventions (ROBINS-I) tool.
resultsA total of 7 eligible studies were identified in 8 papers. Government organizations provided the majority of data across studies, with health care providers and third-sector organizations also providing data. Studies used a range of demographic, clinical and health, and administrative data. The purpose of using routinely collected data spanned recruiting and creating a sample, stratification, generating independent variables or covariates, and measuring key study-related outcomes. Nonhome-based modification interventions (eg, in nursing homes) using routinely collected data were not included in this study. We included two protocols, which meant that the results of those studies were not available. MeSH headings were excluded from the PubMed search because of a reduction in specificity. This means that some studies that met the inclusion criteria may not have been identified.
conclusionsRoutine data can be used successfully in many aspects of HAM evaluations and can reduce biases and improve other important design considerations. However, the use of these data in these studies is currently not widespread. There are a number of governance barriers to be overcome to allow these types of linkage and to ensure that the use of routinely collected data in evaluations of HAM interventions is exploited to its full potential.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.