Registry update — unassessed
Feasibility, Acceptability and Adherence of the Fall Prevention Pathways With Remote Monitoring
Trial registry update: RECRUITING. No results reported in the supplied registry record.
OTHERMinor significance
What this changes
The finding has not established an approved change to our evidence assessment.
Source date: Sep 17, 2026 · Discovered: Sep 19, 2026 · Assessed: — · Research update
What it does not prove
- Whether the remotely monitored Fall Prevention Pathway actually reduced falls or fall risk, as only feasibility and adherence outcomes are described
- The effect of remote monitoring independently or the mechanism through which engagement improvements might translate to clinical benefit
- Generalizability across populations, settings, or delivery models, as the abstract does not specify participant characteristics or implementation details
Extracted from supplied source material; model confidence is not a measured probability of correctness.
Study details
- Design
- Other
- Sample size
- —
- Duration
- —
- Population
- —
- Primary outcome
- —
- Effect size
- —
- Significance
- Not reported
- Journal
- Emory University
- Published
- Sep 17, 2026
Sources
Primary source
- Emory University ↗Clinical trial
Recorded source passages
Abstract or registry material supplied for assessment; source version 1. This is not a claim of full-text review.
Falls are a leading cause of injury and loss of independence in older adults, with evidence supporting exercise-based interventions and remote monitoring as effective strategies for reducing fall risk.
This study builds on prior research demonstrating the feasibility of digital health interventions in rehabilitation and extends it to a structured, remotely monitored Fall Prevention Pathway (FPP).
Preliminary work in digital rehabilitation has shown positive engagement and clinical outcomes, supporting the need for further exploration of feasibility, adherence, and cost implications of remotely monitored fall prevention programs.
Source versions
Assessment history
Discussion (0)
One thread per scientific event, no matter how many outlets covered it.
Sign in to join the discussion.
No comments yet
Be the first to weigh in on this evidence.