ALERT: This system is being upgraded on Tuesday December 12. It will not be available
for use for several hours that day while the upgrade is in progress. Deposits to DukeSpace
will be disabled on Monday December 11, so no new items are to be added to the repository
while the upgrade is in progress. Everything should be back to normal by the end of
day, December 12.
A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of a Randomized Control Trial of a Tailored, Multifactorial Program to Prevent Falls Among the Community-Dwelling Elderly.
Abstract
<h4>Objective</h4>To perform a cost-effectiveness analysis of a multifactorial, tailored
intervention to reduce falls among a heterogeneous group of high-risk elderly people.<h4>Design</h4>Randomized
control trial.<h4>Settings</h4>Communities.<h4>Participants</h4>Adults aged at least
65 years (N=354) seen at the emergency department (ED) for a fall or fall-related
injury and discharged home.<h4>Interventions</h4>The intervention group received a
tailored program of physical therapy focused on progressive training in strength,
balance, and gait for a period of 3 months. They also received screening and referrals
for low vision, polypharmacy, and environmental hazards. The Short Physical Performance
Battery (SPPB) test was assessed at regular intervals to allocate participants into
either a home-based or group center-based program. The control group received usual
care prescribed by a physician and educational materials on falls prevention.<h4>Main
outcome measures</h4>The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) over the 9-month
study period based on intervention costs and utility in terms of quality-adjusted
life years (QALYs) calculated from EuroQol-5D scores.<h4>Results</h4>The ICER was
120,667 Singapore dollars (S$) per QALY gained (S$362/0.003 QALYs), above benchmark
values (S$70,000). However, the intervention was more effective and cost-saving among
those with SPPB scores of greater than 6 at baseline, higher cognitive function, better
vision and no more than 1 fall in the preceding 6 months. The intervention was also
cost-effective among those with 0-1 critical comorbidities (S$22,646/QALY).<h4>Conclusion</h4>The
intervention was, overall, not cost-effective, compared to usual care. However, the
program was cost-effective among healthier subgroups, and even potentially cost-saving
among individuals with sufficient reserve to benefit.
Type
Journal articleSubject
HumansProgram Evaluation
Accidental Falls
Quality-Adjusted Life Years
Aged
Emergency Service, Hospital
Cost-Benefit Analysis
Singapore
Female
Male
Physical Therapy Modalities
Independent Living
Permalink
https://hdl.handle.net/10161/22790Published Version (Please cite this version)
10.1016/j.apmr.2018.07.434Publication Info
Matchar, David B; Eom, Kirsten; Duncan, Pamela W; Lee, Mina; Sim, Rita; Sivapragasam,
Nirmali R; ... Ong, Marcus Eng Hock (2019). A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of a Randomized Control Trial of a Tailored, Multifactorial
Program to Prevent Falls Among the Community-Dwelling Elderly. Archives of physical medicine and rehabilitation, 100(1). pp. 1-8. 10.1016/j.apmr.2018.07.434. Retrieved from https://hdl.handle.net/10161/22790.This is constructed from limited available data and may be imprecise. To cite this
article, please review & use the official citation provided by the journal.
Collections
More Info
Show full item recordScholars@Duke
David Bruce Matchar
Professor of Medicine
My research relates to clinical practice improvement - from the development of clinical
policies to their implementation in real world clinical settings. Most recently my
major content focus has been cerebrovascular disease. Other major clinical areas in
which I work include the range of disabling neurological conditions, cardiovascular
disease, and cancer prevention. Notable features of my work are: (1) reliance on
analytic strategies such as meta-analysis, simulation, decision analy

Articles written by Duke faculty are made available through the campus open access policy. For more information see: Duke Open Access Policy
Rights for Collection: Scholarly Articles
Works are deposited here by their authors, and represent their research and opinions, not that of Duke University. Some materials and descriptions may include offensive content. More info