↓ Skip to main content

Environmental and behavioural interventions for reducing physical activity limitation and preventing falls in older people with visual impairment

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, September 2020
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (93rd percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (66th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
63 tweeters
facebook
3 Facebook pages
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page

Citations

dimensions_citation
1 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
31 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Environmental and behavioural interventions for reducing physical activity limitation and preventing falls in older people with visual impairment
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, September 2020
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd009233.pub3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Jian-Yu E, Tianjing Li, Lianne McInally, Katie Thomson, Uma Shahani, Lyle Gray, Tracey E Howe, Dawn A Skelton

Abstract

Impairment of vision is associated with a decrease in activities of daily living. Avoidance of physical activity in older adults with visual impairment can lead to functional decline and is an important risk factor for falls. The rate of falls and fractures is higher in older people with visual impairment than in age-matched visually normal older people. Possible interventions to reduce activity restriction and prevent falls include environmental and behavioral interventions. We aimed to assess the effectiveness and safety of environmental and behavioral interventions in reducing physical activity limitation, preventing falls and improving quality of life amongst visually impaired older people. We searched CENTRAL (including the Cochrane Eyes and Vision Trials Register) (Issue 2, 2020), Ovid MEDLINE, Embase and eight other databases to 4 February 2020, with no language restrictions. Eligible studies were randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-randomized controlled trials (Q-RCTs) that compared environmental interventions, behavioral interventions or both, versus control (usual care or no intervention); or that compared different types of environmental or behavioral interventions. Eligible study populations were older people (aged 60 and over) with irreversible visual impairment, living in their own homes or in residential settings. To be eligible for inclusion, studies must have included a measure of physical activity or falls, the two primary outcomes of interest. Secondary outcomes included fear of falling, and quality of life. We used standard Cochrane methods. We assessed the certainty of the evidence using the GRADE approach. We included six RCTs (686 participants) conducted in five countries (Australia, Hungary, New Zealand, UK, US) with follow-up periods ranging from two to 12 months. Participants in these trials included older adults (mean age 80 years) and were mostly female (69%), with visual impairments of varying severity and underlying causes. Participants mostly lived in their homes and were physically independent. We classified all trials as having high risk of bias for masking of participants, and three trials as having high or unclear risk of bias for all other domains. The included trials evaluated various intervention strategies (e.g. an exercise program versus home safety modifications). Heterogeneity of study characteristics, including interventions and outcomes, (e.g. different fall measures), precluded any meta-analysis. Two trials compared the home safety modification by occupational therapists versus social/home visits. One trial (28 participants) reported physical activity at six months and showed no evidence of a difference in mean estimates between groups (step counts: mean difference (MD) = 321, 95% confidence interval (CI) -1981 to 2623; average walking time (minutes): MD 1.70, 95% CI -24.03 to 27.43; telephone questionnaire for self-reported physical activity: MD -3.68 scores, 95% CI -20.6 to 13.24; low-certainty of evidence for each outcome). Two trials reported the proportion of participants who fell at six months (risk ratio (RR) 0.76, 95% CI 0.38 to 1.51; 28 participants) and 12 months (RR 0.59, 95% CI 0.43 to 0.80, 196 participants) with low-certainty of evidence for each outcome. One trial (28 participants) reported fear of falling at six months, using the Short Falls Efficacy Scale-International, and found no evidence of a difference in mean estimates between groups (MD 2.55 scores, 95% CI -0.51 to 5.61; low-certainty of evidence). This trial also reported quality of life at six months using 12-Item Short Form Health Survey, and showed no evidence of a difference in mean estimates between groups (MD -3.14 scores, 95% CI -10.86 to 4.58; low-certainty of evidence). Five trials compared a behavioral intervention (exercise) versus usual activity or social/home visits. One trial (59 participants) assessed self-reported physical activity at six months and showed no evidence of a difference between groups (MD 9.10 scores, 95% CI -13.85 to 32.5; low-certainty of evidence). Three trials investigated different fall measures at six or 12 months, and found no evidence of a difference in effect estimates (RRs for proportion of fallers ranged from 0.54 (95% CI 0.29 to 1.01; 41 participants); to 0.93 (95% CI 0.61 to 1.39; 120 participants); low-certainty of evidence for each outcome). Three trials assessed the fear of falling using Short Falls Efficacy Scale-International or the Illinois Fear of Falling Measure from two to 12 months, and found no evidence of a difference in mean estimates between groups (the estimates ranged from -0.88 score (95% CI -2.72 to 0.96, 114 participants) to 1.00 score (95% CI -0.13 to 2.13; 59 participants); low-certainty of evidence). One trial (59 participants) assessed the European Quality of Life scale at six months (MD -0.15 score, 95% CI -0.29 to -0.01), and found no evidence of a clinical difference between groups (low-certainty of evidence). There is no evidence of effect for most of the environmental or behavioral interventions studied for reducing physical activity limitation and preventing falls in visually impaired older people. The certainty of evidence is generally low due to poor methodological quality and heterogeneous outcome measurements. Researchers should form a consensus to adopt standard ways of measuring physical activity and falls reliably in older people with visual impairments. Fall prevention trials should plan to use objectively measured or self-reported physical activity as outcome measures of reduced activity limitation. Future research should evaluate the acceptability and applicability of interventions, and use validated questionnaires to assess the adherence to rehabilitative strategies and performance during activities of daily living.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 63 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 31 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 31 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 5 16%
Student > Master 5 16%
Researcher 4 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 13%
Student > Postgraduate 2 6%
Other 4 13%
Unknown 7 23%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 11 35%
Medicine and Dentistry 8 26%
Sports and Recreations 1 3%
Social Sciences 1 3%
Psychology 1 3%
Other 1 3%
Unknown 8 26%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 44. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 18 January 2021.
All research outputs
#549,721
of 16,630,619 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#1,387
of 11,549 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#18,699
of 305,656 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#14
of 39 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 16,630,619 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 96th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,549 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 24.4. This one has done well, scoring higher than 87% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 305,656 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 93% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 39 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 66% of its contemporaries.