SUMMARY: We estimated the incremental cost-effectiveness of a once-weekly or twice-weekly resistance training intervention compared with balance and tone classes in terms of falls prevented and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) gained. Both resistance training interventions were more likely to save health care resource money and offer better health outcomes for falls prevention than balance and tone classes. INTRODUCTION: This study aims to estimate the incremental cost-effectiveness and cost-utility of a once-weekly or twice-weekly resistance training intervention compared with twice-weekly balance and tone classes in terms of falls prevented and QALYs gained. METHODS: Economic evaluation was conducted concurrently with a three-arm randomized controlled trial including 155 community-dwelling women aged 65 to 75 years, Mini Mental State Examination ≥24, and visual acuity 20/40 or better. Participants received the once-weekly resistance training (n = 54), the twice-weekly resistance training (n = 51) or the twice-weekly balance and tone (the comparator) classes (n = 50) for 1 year. Measurements included the number of falls for each participant, healthcare resource utilization, and associated costs over 9 months; health status was assessed using the EQ-5D and SF-6D to calculate QALYs. RESULTS: Based on the point estimates from our base case analysis, we found that both once- and twice-weekly resistance training groups were less costly (p < 0.05) and more effective than twice-weekly balance and tone classes. The incremental QALYs assessed using the SF-6D were 0.003 for both the once- and twice-weekly resistance training groups, compared with the twice-weekly balance and tone classes. The incremental QALYs assessed using the EQ-5D were 0.084 for the once-weekly and 0.179 for the twice-weekly resistance training groups, respectively, compared with the twice-weekly balance and tone classes. CONCLUSIONS: An individually tailored resistance training intervention delivered once or twice weekly provided better value for money for falls prevention than balance and tone classes.
RCT Entities:
SUMMARY: We estimated the incremental cost-effectiveness of a once-weekly or twice-weekly resistance training intervention compared with balance and tone classes in terms of falls prevented and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) gained. Both resistance training interventions were more likely to save health care resource money and offer better health outcomes for falls prevention than balance and tone classes. INTRODUCTION: This study aims to estimate the incremental cost-effectiveness and cost-utility of a once-weekly or twice-weekly resistance training intervention compared with twice-weekly balance and tone classes in terms of falls prevented and QALYs gained. METHODS: Economic evaluation was conducted concurrently with a three-arm randomized controlled trial including 155 community-dwelling women aged 65 to 75 years, Mini Mental State Examination ≥24, and visual acuity 20/40 or better. Participants received the once-weekly resistance training (n = 54), the twice-weekly resistance training (n = 51) or the twice-weekly balance and tone (the comparator) classes (n = 50) for 1 year. Measurements included the number of falls for each participant, healthcare resource utilization, and associated costs over 9 months; health status was assessed using the EQ-5D and SF-6D to calculate QALYs. RESULTS: Based on the point estimates from our base case analysis, we found that both once- and twice-weekly resistance training groups were less costly (p < 0.05) and more effective than twice-weekly balance and tone classes. The incremental QALYs assessed using the SF-6D were 0.003 for both the once- and twice-weekly resistance training groups, compared with the twice-weekly balance and tone classes. The incremental QALYs assessed using the EQ-5D were 0.084 for the once-weekly and 0.179 for the twice-weekly resistance training groups, respectively, compared with the twice-weekly balance and tone classes. CONCLUSIONS: An individually tailored resistance training intervention delivered once or twice weekly provided better value for money for falls prevention than balance and tone classes.
Authors: M C Robertson; N Devlin; P Scuffham; M M Gardner; D M Buchner; A J Campbell Journal: J Epidemiol Community Health Date: 2001-08 Impact factor: 3.710
Authors: Teresa Liu-Ambrose; Meghan G Donaldson; Yasmin Ahamed; Peter Graf; Wendy L Cook; Jacqueline Close; Stephen R Lord; Karim M Khan Journal: J Am Geriatr Soc Date: 2008-09-15 Impact factor: 5.562
Authors: Russel Burge; Bess Dawson-Hughes; Daniel H Solomon; John B Wong; Alison King; Anna Tosteson Journal: J Bone Miner Res Date: 2007-03 Impact factor: 6.741
Authors: Leena Timonen; Taina Rantanen; Olli-Pekka Ryynänen; Simo Taimela; Tero E Timonen; Raimo Sulkava Journal: Scand J Med Sci Sports Date: 2002-06 Impact factor: 4.221
Authors: Jennifer C Davis; Carlo A Marra; B Lynn Beattie; M Clare Robertson; Mehdi Najafzadeh; Peter Graf; Lindsay S Nagamatsu; Teresa Liu-Ambrose Journal: Arch Intern Med Date: 2010-12-13
Authors: Jennifer C Davis; Carlo A Marra; M Clare Robertson; Mehdi Najafzadeh; Teresa Liu-Ambrose Journal: J Am Geriatr Soc Date: 2011-06-30 Impact factor: 5.562
Authors: R Patil; P Kolu; J Raitanen; J Valvanne; P Kannus; S Karinkanta; H Sievänen; K Uusi-Rasi Journal: Osteoporos Int Date: 2015-07-24 Impact factor: 4.507
Authors: Jennifer C Davis; Stirling Bryan; Carlo A Marra; Devika Sharma; Alison Chan; B Lynn Beattie; Peter Graf; Teresa Liu-Ambrose Journal: PLoS One Date: 2013-05-14 Impact factor: 3.240