ArticleBMC public health2026
Evaluation of the Falls Management Exercise (FaME) programme implemented across three United Kingdom regions: a prospective cohort study.
Article in BMC public health, 2026. 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
13 authors.
Funding
Abstract
aimsThe Falls Management Exercise (FaME) programme, delivered over 24 weeks, reduces falls in randomised controlled trials and ‘real world’ delivery, but some services deliver shorter, adapted FaME programmes. We investigated the ‘real-world’ effectiveness of FaME delivered for 12 or 24 weeks across three UK regions.
methodsDesign: prospective cohort study. Participants: 1,601 FaME programme attendees (median age 79.5 years), of whom 873 had follow-up data recorded. Setting: 14 provider organisations in Greater Manchester, Devon and the East Midlands. Procedure: Participant data were collected by FaME providers at baseline and up to 24 weeks later. Outcomes: Timed up-and-go (TUG); Short Falls Efficacy Scale-International (Short FES-I); at least one self-reported fall, and number of self-reported falls, in the past 3 months. Analysis: Univariate before-and-after tests; multivariable multilevel logistic, linear, Poisson, negative binomial regression.
resultsAt final follow-up (≤24 weeks), compared to baseline, the odds of a self-reported fall within 3 months (Odds ratio 0.16 [95% confidence interval [CI] 0.10 to 0.25], p <.001) and TUG time had decreased (difference-between-paired-medians -1.0 (95% CI -1.50 to -1.0), p <.001). Short FES-I scores had not significantly changed. Twenty-four- rather than 12-week programmes were associated with faster TUG times (mean difference -3.31 seconds [95% CI -5.97 to -0.65]) and reduced concerns about falling (mean Short FES-I difference -2.00 [95% CI -3.65 to -0.34], p = 0.018), but no significant difference in the odds of a self-reported fall or number of falls within 3 months.
conclusionsFaME programmes of both 12 and 24-weeks were associated with improved functional mobility and reduced falls. Participants who attended 24-, rather than 12-week, programmes had significantly greater improvements in functional mobility and reduced concerns about falling. Due to follow-up data missingness, the study was not adequately powered to detect differences in falls risk or rate between 12 and 24-week programmes.
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.