AgingResearch.NewsJoin free

Steadi options

Steadi options has been studied in 1 paper since 2025: 1 trial in people; 1 in the past year. The newest story, Oct 30, 2026: “Remote fall prevention showed no clear benefit in at-risk older adults”.

Intervention

1 paper studies it3 findingsUpdated

See all 1

“However, after adjusting for SIS score (model 1) and SIS score, demographic characteristics, and EHR falls at baseline (model 2) these differences were no longer significant (RR = 1.098, 95% CI: 0.792–1.524 and RR = 1.091, 95% CI: 0.797–1.493, respectively).”
Evaluating the effectiveness of a telemedicine-based STEADI implementation in primary care on fall outcomes: the STEADI options randomized controlled trialThe Gerontologist2025doi:10.1093/geront/gnaf292

None of its findings points the other way.

C, W, M, H: cells, worms or flies, mice, humans. Dark: independent labs found the same change there. Light: one lab or one study. Outline: nothing yet.

  • 1 lab in 1 country
  • Funders: Health Resources and Services Administration and 1 more
  • Human trial1

Studies in people

1 study gave steadi options to people and measured what changed.

What did studies of Steadi options find?

2

Studies of Steadi options measured 2 outcomes; the most studied are falls (1 study) and Confirmed falls (1).

Falls

no changein humans1RR 1.091

1 study

  1. Steadi options showed no clear effect on falls in humans (RR = 1.091, 95% CI: 0.797–1.493).

    “However, after adjusting for SIS score (model 1) and SIS score, demographic characteristics, and EHR falls at baseline (model 2) these differences were no longer significant (RR = 1.098, 95% CI: 0.792–1.524 and RR = 1.091, 95% CI: 0.797–1.493, respectively).”

    Human trialn = 720

    Remote fall prevention showed no clear benefit in at-risk older adults

    The Gerontologist

  2. Steadi options showed no clear effect on falls in humans (adjusted for SIS) (OR 0.741, 95% CI 0.411-1.336).

    “No significant differences were observed between groups in fall-related outcomes (e.g., medically treated falls odds ratio [adjusted for SIS]: 0.741; 95% CI: 0.411-1.336).”

    Human trialadjusted for SISone yearn = 660

    Remote fall prevention showed no clear benefit in at-risk older adults

    The Gerontologist

Confirmed falls

no changein humans1OR 0.812

1 study

  1. Steadi options showed no clear effect on confirmed falls in humans (OR = 0.812, 95% CI: 0.418–1.574).

    “The treatment group had consistently lower odds of experiencing at least one confirmed fall recorded in the EHR, with a 10.6% reduction in the unadjusted analysis (OR = 0.894, 95% CI: 0.473–1.690), and 24.4% reduction after adjusting for SIS (model 1) (OR = 0.756, 95% CI: 0.393–1.452), and an 18.8% reduction in model 2 (OR = 0.812, 95% CI: 0.418–1.574), although none of these differences achieved statistical significance due to wide confidence intervals that included unity”

    Human trialn = 720

    Remote fall prevention showed no clear benefit in at-risk older adults

    The Gerontologist

Latest

Nov 2025: 0Dec 2025: 1Jan 2026: 0Feb 2026: 0Mar 2026: 0Apr 2026: 0May 2026: 0Jun 2026: 0Jul 2026: 0Aug 2026: 0Sep 2026: 0Oct 2026: 01 paper in 12 months
The Gerontologist

Remote fall prevention showed no clear benefit in at-risk older adults

A randomized trial followed 660 adults aged 65 and older for one year, comparing nurse-led remote fall assessments with usual primary care.A randomized trial followed 660 adults aged 65 and older for one year, comparing nurse-led remote fall assessments with usual primary care.

Randomized trial · 660 peopleInterventions
Paper

Related