Does a home-based strength and balance programme in people aged ≥80 years provide the best value for money to prevent falls? A systematic review of economic evaluations of falls prevention interventions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To investigate the value for money of strategies to prevent falls in older adults living in the community. DESIGN: Systematic review of peer reviewed journal articles reporting an economic evaluation of a falls prevention intervention as part of a randomised controlled trial or a controlled trial, or using an analytical model. MEDLINE, PUBMED, EMBASE and NHS EED databases were searched to identify cost-effectiveness, cost-utility and cost-benefit studies from 1945 through July 2008. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome measure was incremental cost-effectiveness, cost-utility and cost-benefit ratios in the reported currency and in pounds sterling at 2008 prices. The quality of the studies was assessed using two instruments: (1) an economic evaluation checklist developed by Drummond and colleagues and (2) the Quality of Health Economic Studies instrument. RESULTS: Nine studies meeting our inclusion criteria included eight cost-effectiveness analyses, one cost-utility and one cost-benefit analysis. Three effective falls prevention strategies were cost saving in a subgroup of PARTICIPANTS: (1) an individually customised multifactorial programme in those with four or more of the eight targeted fall risk factors, (2) the home-based Otago Exercise Programme in people > or =80 years and (3) a home safety programme in the subgroup with a previous fall. These three findings were from six studies that scored > or =75% on the Quality of Health Economic Studies instrument. CONCLUSIONS: Best value for money came from effective single factor interventions such as the Otago Exercise Programme which was cost saving in adults 80 years and older. This programme has broad applicability thus warranting warrants health policy decision-makers' close scrutiny.
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 | 0.010 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".