IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0339497.html

The cost-effectiveness of the Dutch In Balance fall prevention intervention compared to exercise recommendations among community-dwelling older adults with an increased risk of falls: A randomized controlled trial

Author

Listed:
  • Jirini Delfgaauw
  • Maaike van Gameren
  • Paul B Voorn
  • Daniël Bossen
  • Branko F Olij
  • Bart Visser
  • Mirjam Pijnappels
  • Judith E Bosmans

Abstract

Background: Falls among older adults are a growing public health issue, and are associated with injuries and increased societal costs. Therefore, implementation of effective fall prevention interventions is important. Given limited healthcare resources, evaluating the cost-effectiveness of these interventions is essential. Therefore, we aimed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of the In Balance fall prevention intervention for community-dwelling older adults with an increased risk of falls compared to general physical activity recommendations (control) from a societal perspective. Methods: An economic evaluation was conducted alongside a twelve month, single-blind, multicenter randomized controlled trial. Participants were 264 non- and pre-frail community-dwelling adults aged 65 years or older with an increased fall risk. We assessed costs from a societal perspective and effects included the number of falls, fall-related injuries, and Quality-Adjusted Life Years (QALYs) based on the EuroQol Five-level questionnaire (EQ-5D-5L) and the Adult Social Care Outcomes Toolkit (ASCOT). Missing data were handled using Multiple Imputation by Chained Equations (MICE). Incremental costs and effects were estimated using Seemingly Unrelated Regressions and used to estimate Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs). Results: On average, In Balance was less expensive and more effective than control, but differences were not statistically significant. ICERs indicated dominance of the intervention for prevented falls (€-14,329 per prevented fall), prevented fall-related injuries (€-14,569 per prevented injury), and QALYs based on both the EQ-5D-5L (€-168,265 per QALY gained) and ASCOT (€-135,797 per QALY gained). The probability of cost-effectiveness of In Balance compared to control was 98% at a willingness to pay (WTP) of €0 per unit of effect gained. Conclusions: Based on this study, we conclude that In Balance may be considered cost-effective compared to control. Future research should explore whether In Balance as part of a comprehensive fall prevention strategy is cost-effective. Trial registration: Research with human participants: NL9248 (registered February 13 2021, URL: https://www.onderzoekmetmensen.nl/nl/trial/26195)

Suggested Citation

  • Jirini Delfgaauw & Maaike van Gameren & Paul B Voorn & Daniël Bossen & Branko F Olij & Bart Visser & Mirjam Pijnappels & Judith E Bosmans, 2025. "The cost-effectiveness of the Dutch In Balance fall prevention intervention compared to exercise recommendations among community-dwelling older adults with an increased risk of falls: A randomized controlled trial," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 20(12), pages 1-17, December.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0339497
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0339497
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0339497
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0339497&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0339497?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0339497. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.