Why modelling a complex intervention is an important precursor to trial design: lessons from studying an intervention to reduce falls-related injuries in older people
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To develop a cost-effectiveness model of a complex intervention from pilot study data in order to inform the viability and design of a subsequent falls prevention trial. METHODS: We used two models; the first estimated the probability of falling over a 12-month period based on a probability tree; the second used Markov simulation to assess the impact of the programme over time. RESULTS: The first model indicated that our intervention would reduce the proportion falling by only 2.8% over a 12-month period. The major reason for this small effect was that less than a quarter of older people at risk of falling were assessed using our screening tool. Even if policy-makers were willing to spend 30,000 pounds per quality-adjusted life-year gained, there is only a 40% chance that the intervention would be cost-effective. Sensitivity analyses showed that the only scenarios that produced a substantial increase in the effect of the intervention were those in which all older people are assessed. CONCLUSIONS: The model-building approach described in this paper is vital when designing complex trials and where a trial is not possible. Information from the modelling can be used to re-design the intervention. The effectiveness of our proposed intervention appears very small due to its inability to reach those at risk of falling. It is most likely not to be cost-effective. If inability to reach the target group is a weakness common to other similar interventions, this suggests an area for further research.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.015 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".