Mode
Text Size
Log in / Sign up

Face-to-Face Training Shows Greater Short-Term Gains Than Remote in Fall Prevention Program for Older AdultsStudy compares remote and in-person fall prevention training for older adults

AI-generated summary of the cited source, checked by automated accuracy review. How we work

Key Takeaway
Consider that face-to-face training may offer initial physical advantages over remote in fall prevention programs, though differences diminish with combined modalities.

This randomized controlled trial compared two sequences of a combined-modality fall prevention program in community-dwelling adults aged 65+. One group received 3 months of remote Otago-based training followed by 3 months of face-to-face training, while the comparator received the opposite sequence. The study assessed outcomes at baseline, 3, 6, and 12 months, with follow-up at 6 months post-intervention.

Face-to-face training led to greater short-term improvements in Berg Balance Scale (BBS) and Sit-to-Stand scores (p = 0.04 and p = 0.01, respectively), though absolute numbers and effect sizes were not reported. These differences diminished after participants transitioned to the other modality, with no sequence effect observed. Physical gains were partly maintained at follow-up. For fall outcomes, there was no significant group difference (RR = 1.11, p = 0.66).

Safety data showed two non-severe falls per modality occurred during training, with serious adverse events not reported. Attendance and satisfaction were similarly high for both approaches. The study's practice relevance suggests remote training is acceptable and safe for community-dwelling older adults, and combined-modality programs can incorporate advantages of both delivery methods. Key limitations include an unreported sample size, some outcomes reported with p-values only without confidence intervals or absolute numbers, and findings from a single RCT.

Researchers wanted to know if a fall prevention exercise program worked differently when delivered remotely (like through video) versus in person, and if the order mattered. They studied older adults, aged 65 and over, who live independently in the community. The program, called Otago-based training, involves strength and balance exercises. All participants did both remote and in-person training over six months, but in different orders.

The study found that people who started with in-person training showed slightly better short-term improvements on some physical tests, like balance and leg strength, compared to those who started remotely. However, this difference became smaller after everyone switched to the other type of training. Importantly, there was no significant difference between the groups in the number of falls people had over the study period. Two non-severe falls happened during training sessions, one in each type of training.

The main reason to be careful is that this is just one study, and the total number of people in it was not reported. Some results were shared only with p-values, which makes it harder to judge the strength of the findings. Readers should understand that both remote and in-person versions of this exercise program were found to be safe and well-liked by participants. The results suggest that starting with in-person sessions might give a small early boost in physical performance, but a combined approach using both methods is a viable option.

What this means for you:
Both remote and in-person fall prevention exercises were safe and acceptable for older adults in this single study.

Study Details

Study typeRct
EvidenceLevel 2
Follow-up6.0 mo
PublishedApr 2026
View Original Abstract ↓
OBJECTIVES: This study compared the effects of remote versus face-to-face fall prevention training, assessed the impact of sequence in a combined-modality program (remote-first versus face-to-face first), and evaluated improvements 6 months post-intervention. METHODS: In this randomized controlled trial, community-dwelling adults (65+) were randomized into face-to-face or remote Otago-based training for 3 months, then switched modalities for another 3 months. Outcomes included adherence, satisfaction, adverse events, physical tests, self-reported measures and falls, assessed at baseline, 3, 6, and 12 months. RESULTS: Face-to-face training led to greater short-term improvements in BBS and Sit-to-Stand scores (p = 0.04, 0.01); however, these differences diminished post-modality transition, indicating no sequence effect. Physical gains were partly maintained at follow-up. No significant group difference in fall outcomes was observed (RR = 1.11, p = 0.66). Attendance and satisfaction were similarly high. Two non-severe falls per modality occurred during training. CONCLUSIONS: Remote training is acceptable and safe for community-dwelling adults. Combined-modality programs incorporate the advantages of remote and face-to-face. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov registration number NCT05018455.
Free Newsletter

Clinical research that matters. Delivered to your inbox.

Join thousands of clinicians and researchers. No spam, unsubscribe anytime.