Trial reportEuropean geriatric medicine2026
Evaluating a user-centered design driven multifactorial falls risk assessment tool in primary care: a randomized effectiveness-implementation study.
Trial report in European geriatric medicine, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Evaluating a user-centered design driven multifactorial falls risk assessment tool in primary care: a randomized effectiveness-implementation study.European geriatric medicine · 2026Trial
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposeMultifactorial falls risk assessment tools (FRATs) help identify and target individual falls risk factors in older adults, but barriers can limit their effectiveness. This study evaluated a User-Centered Design (UCD) developed digital multifactorial FRAT, the Fall Analysis 2.0 in Dutch primary care.
methodsA randomized effectiveness-implementation study included 19 health care professionals (HCPs) from 15 primary care practices, randomly assigned to either the intervention or usual care group (control). The intervention involved using the Fall Analysis 2.0 and corresponding training. Participants were community-dwelling (65 +) at high risk of falling (36 intervention vs 27 control; mean age 81 years; 63.5% female). Primary outcomes included HCPs falls risk management behavior and older adults' adherence-related motivation to falls prevention advice, analyzed using Fisher's Exact tests and Mann Whitney U tests. Secondary outcomes of the Fall Analysis 2.0 user experience was explored through HCP interviews.
resultsFully completed multifactorial falls risk assessments (86.1%; n = 31) were significantly higher in the intervention than control group (3.7%, n = 1), p < .001. Use of validated tools was lower in the control group (11.1%; n = 3), p < .001. HCPs rated the Fall Analysis 2.0 highly for user experience. Successful implementation is dependent on improved reimbursement and interoperability with electronic health records. No significant differences in older adults' adherence-related motivation were found due to a ceiling effect.
conclusionUCD developed digital multifactorial FRATs like the Fall Analysis 2.0 show promise for improving falls prevention care quality. Future research should disentangle the effects of UCD from digitalization.
Indexed as
Identifiers
41186658What 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.