↓ Skip to main content

Economic evaluation of a group-based exercise program for falls prevention among the older community-dwelling population

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Geriatrics, March 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (68th percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
21 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
97 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Economic evaluation of a group-based exercise program for falls prevention among the older community-dwelling population
Published in
BMC Geriatrics, March 2015
DOI 10.1186/s12877-015-0028-x
Pubmed ID
Authors

Kendra McLean, Lesley Day, Andrew Dalton

Abstract

Falls among older people are of growing concern globally. Implementing cost-effective strategies for their prevention is of utmost importance given the ageing population and associated potential for increased costs of fall-related injury over the next decades. The purpose of this study was to undertake a cost-utility analysis and secondary cost-effectiveness analysis from a healthcare system perspective, of a group-based exercise program compared to routine care for falls prevention in an older community-dwelling population. A decision analysis using a decision tree model was based on the results of a previously published randomised controlled trial with a community-dwelling population aged over 70. Measures of falls, fall-related injuries and resource use were directly obtained from trial data and supplemented by literature-based utility measures. A sub-group analysis was performed of women only. Cost estimates are reported in 2010 British Pound Sterling (GBP). The ICER of GBP£51,483 per QALY for the base case analysis was well above the accepted cost-effectiveness threshold of GBP£20,000 to £30,000 per QALY, but in a sensitivity analysis with minimised program implementation costs reached GBP£25,678 per QALY. The ICER value at 95% confidence in the base case analysis was GBP£99,664 per QALY and GBP£50,549 per QALY in the lower cost analysis. Males had a 44% lower injury rate if they fell, compared to females resulting in a more favourable ICER for the women only analysis. For women only the ICER was GBP£22,986 per QALY in the base case and was below the cost-effectiveness threshold for all other variations of program implementation. The ICER value at 95% confidence was GBP£48,212 in the women only base case analysis and GBP£23,645 in the lower cost analysis. The base case incremental cost per fall averted was GBP£652 (GBP£616 for women only). A threshold analysis indicates that this exercise program cannot realistically break even. The results suggest that this exercise program is cost-effective for women only. There is no evidence to support its cost-effectiveness in a group of mixed gender unless the costs of program implementation are minimal. Conservative assumptions may have underestimated the true cost-effectiveness of the program.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 97 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 2 2%
Canada 1 1%
Unknown 94 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 27 28%
Researcher 14 14%
Student > Bachelor 13 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 9 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 6 6%
Other 10 10%
Unknown 18 19%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 19 20%
Medicine and Dentistry 19 20%
Sports and Recreations 6 6%
Social Sciences 5 5%
Engineering 5 5%
Other 21 22%
Unknown 22 23%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 16 May 2019.
All research outputs
#5,076,102
of 16,469,608 outputs
Outputs from BMC Geriatrics
#1,068
of 1,901 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#73,334
of 238,616 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Geriatrics
#1
of 1 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 16,469,608 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 68th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,901 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.1. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 238,616 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 68% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 1 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them