A mixed methods process evaluation of a person-centred falls prevention program

Table 1 Participant characteristics

RESPOND intervention participant characteristics
Recruitment	n = 263
Female, n (%)	132 (50.2)
Age group, n (%)
60–69	107 (40.7)
70–79	89 (33.8)
80–90	67 (25.5)
Socio-economic status^a
1st quartile	4 (1.5)
2nd quartile	22 (8.4)
3rd quartile	51 (19.4)
4th quartile	186 (70.7)
Home visit	n = 224
Lives alone, n (%)	93 (41.5)
Number of falls^b, n (%)
1 fall	135 (60.2)
2 falls	51 (22.8)
≥ 3 falls	38 (17.0)
Number of comorbidities^c, n (%)
None	53 (23.6)
1	55 (24.6)
2	53 (23.7)
≥ 3	63 (28.1)
Falls risk^d
Mild, n (%)	54 (24.1)
Moderate, n (%)	90 (40.2)
High, n (%)	80 (35.7)

^aSocio-economic status was approximated using the Index of Relative Socio-Economic Advantage and Disadvantage (IRSAD) [36]. The 1st quartile (25th percentile) represents those with the most disadvantage, with the 4th quartile (100th percentile) representing those with the most advantage
^bNumber of falls in the last 12 months (including the index fall) was reported by participants as part of the Falls Risk for Older People – Community setting (FROP-Com) risk assessment tool
^c Number of comorbidities was reported by participants as part of the FROP-Com assessment. Defined as total number of diagnoses of: arthritis; any respiratory condition; Parkinson’s Disease; diabetes; dementia; peripheral neuropathy; any cardiac condition; stroke; any other neurological condition; lower limb amputation; osteoporosis; vestibular disorder; or lower limb joint replacement
^d Falls risk was determined from the FROP-Com total score (0–60): mild = 0–11; moderate = 12–18; high = 19–60 [25]

ISSN: 1472-6963