ArticleBMC public health2025
A mixed-methods formative process evaluation of the falls management exercise programme in an English county.
Article in BMC public health, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe Falls Management Exercise (FaME) Programme has been shown in clinical trials to reduce falls amongst the over 65s. FaME was implemented in one large, rural county in England. The current study is a formative process evaluation measuring the impact on those completing the FaME intervention, and examines service reach, fidelity, acceptability, and maintenance of outcomes.
methodsAnonymised routine data was collected from 110 participants at baseline, the end of the programme and at three-months follow-up. Median and IQR at baseline and end of FaME for self-reported falls, fear of falling, physical activity, quality of life, loneliness, Timed-up-and-go, Turn 1800 and Functional Reach were calculated, and differences were compared using a Wilcoxon signed-rank test. Qualitative data were collected through interviews with intervention commissioners (N = 5), delivery staff (N = 9) and participants (N = 32) and their carers (N = 8) and eight structured observations of FaME classes, and analysed using the Framework method.
resultsOf the 110 participants who started the programme and consented to routine data being collected for the study, 90% remained on programme and completed the final 24th session; 75% completed at least 75% or more of the 24-week course. Median levels of Timed-up-and-go, Functional Reach and the Turn 180o test improved across the 110 participants between baseline and the end of the FaME intervention (P < 0.001). Fear of falling and self-reported falls decreased on average by the end of the intervention (P < 0.001). Participants were highly motivated to attend, with completers reporting a range of benefits attributed to the intervention. DISCUSSION: The primary aim of reducing falls amongst the over-65s participating in FaME was met and the service was acceptable to participants. There remain concerns around service reach, and the potential to widen health inequalities. The main risk to the maintenance of the FaME intervention across the county is the recruitment and retention of programme staff.
conclusionThis study finds evidence that despite the anticipated challenges of implementation in a rural county with poor infrastructure, the intervention achieved improved outcomes for participants. STUDY REGISTRATION: Researchregistry9560.
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.