Incorporating qualitative evidence into Cochrane Collaboration reviews: informing implementation of fall-prevention interventions in care facilities

Article type
Authors
Cameron I1, Crotty M2, Dawson R3, Dyer S2, Kneale D4, Kwok W3, McLennan C3, Narayan S3, Seppala L5, Sherrington C3, Suen J2, Sutcliffe K4, van der Velde N5
1John Walsh Centre for Rehabilitation Research, Northern Sydney Local Health District and the University of Sydney, St Leonards, New South Wales, Australia; Kolling Institute, The University of Sydney, St Leonards, New South Wales, Australia
2Flinders Health and Medical Research Institute, Flinders University, Bedford Park, South Australia, Australia
3Institute for Musculoskeletal Health, Sydney Musculoskeletal Health, The University of Sydney and Sydney Local Health District, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia
4EPPI Centre, UCL Social Research Institute, University College London, London, England, United Kingdom
5Amsterdam Public Health Research Institute, Amsterdam, The Netherlands; Amsterdam UMC location, Internal Medicine, Section of Geriatric Medicine, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
Abstract
Background
A 2018 Cochrane Collaboration review of interventions to prevent falls in older people living in care facilities found a lack of evidence for the effectiveness of multifactorial and medication review interventions. However, meta-analyses had high heterogeneity unexplained by prespecified subgroup analyses.
Objectives
To update the 2018 Cochrane review and incorporate the novel methodology of qualitative comparative analysis (QCA) to inform conclusions about the effectiveness of fall-prevention interventions in care facilities.
Methods
The Cochrane review was updated to December 2022, with generic inverse variance meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials reporting the rate of falls (rate ratio, RaR) or risk of falling (risk ratio, RR). QCA was conducted for multifactorial and medication optimization interventions to identify configurations of conditions associated with successful trial outcomes. For multifactorial interventions, this was informed by a thematic analysis of trial authors’ views to develop a theory of drivers of trial effectiveness that captures implementation context (intervention component analysis, ICA). For medication optimization, the QCA was informed by a recommendation from the European Geriatric Medicine Society 2022 position paper. There was no consumer involvement.
Results
Pooled analysis of multifactorial trials did not demonstrate a significant reduction in falls (RaR = 0.87, 95% CI = 0.69-1.10, 12 trials, I² = 87%; RR = 0.90, 95% CI = 0.80-1.01, 11 trials, I² = 32%). A subgroup analysis informed by QCA found trials that implement interventions with facility staff engagement and tailored intervention delivery considering residents' individual circumstances (eg, living with dementia) reduce falls (RaR = 0.61, 95% CI = 0.54-0.69, 7 trials, I² = 0%; RR = 0.76, 95% CI = 0.66-0.89, 5 trials, I² = 0%; subgroup differences P ≤ 0.01). Pooled analysis of medication optimization interventions did not demonstrate a reduction in falls (RaR = 0.91, 95% CI = 0.72-1.15; I² = 86%; RR = 0.95, 95% CI = 0.87-1.04; I² = 6%). QCA did not identify trial features likely to explain trial outcomes.
Conclusions
Utilizing qualitative evidence to inform meta-analysis subgroups through QCA informed by ICA to capture the context and implementation of interventions can inform clear conclusions. The additional detail obtained can indicate how to implement interventions to best improve resident outcomes. QCA based on intervention features alone may not adequately capture the complexity of factors that contribute to the outcome of fall-prevention interventions in this setting.