Evidence-Based Community Fall Prevention Programs at Senior Centers Near 10 US Academic Centers.

Author: Hamel C1, Hekmatjah N2, Hakakian B2, Banooni M2, Lalezari J2, Simino MS2, Azizi J2, Zaghi D2, Kamen L2, Atanelov L3
Author Information:
1Florida International University, Miami, Florida.
2University of California, Los Angeles, Los Angeles, California.
3Steady Strides: Fall Prevention and Stroke Rehabilitation Medical Institute, Johns Hopkins Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, Baltimore, Maryland.
Conference/Journal: J Am Geriatr Soc.
Date published: 2019 May 3
Other: Special Notes: doi: 10.1111/jgs.15961. [Epub ahead of print] , Word Count: 280

BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVES: The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommends that patients at risk of falling engage in evidence-based community fall prevention programs (EBCFPPs). EBCFPPs are often delivered in senior centers (SCs). This is the first independent assessment of availability of EBCFPPs in SCs.

DESIGN: Cross-sectional study of four types of EBCFPPs in the 25-mile radius of 10 US academic centers (ACs).




MEASUREMENTS: Number and types of EBCFPPs offered at SCs.

RESULTS: Across the 10 ACs, 249 SCs were sampled. Of the SCs, 35% offered zero, 54% offered at least one, 9% offered at least two, and 2% offered at least three EBCFPPs. Tai Chi of any type was offered in 59.8%, A Matter of Balance was offered in 8.9%, Stepping On was offered in 8.0%, and Staying Active and Independent for Life was offered in 1.2% of SCs sampled. SCs near Columbia University offered all four of the programs, while those near the University of Utah, Johns Hopkins University, and Seattle University only offered three of the programs. In univariate analysis, the number of local SCs was significantly associated with quantity of EBCFPPs (odds ratio [OR] = 2.2; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.9-2.6; P < .001), but not with diversity of EBCFPPs (OR = 1.0; 95% CI = 1.0-1.1; P = .13). In multivariate regression, city, sex distribution, and average household income did not correlate with the overall number or the diversity of EBCFPPs, whereas locales with more SCs offered more EBCFPPs (OR = 2.2; 95% CI = 1.7-2.9; P < .001).

CONCLUSIONS: A significant number of SCs still do not offer any EBCFPPs. From those that do, few offer a diversity of these programs. Opportunities exist to increase access to EBCFPPs in SCs.

© 2019 The American Geriatrics Society.

KEYWORDS: fall prevention; falls; geriatrics; senior; senior center

PMID: 31050817 DOI: 10.1111/jgs.15961