↓ Skip to main content

Exercise programmes to prevent falls among older adults: modelling health gain, cost-utility and equity impacts

Overview of attention for article published in Injury Prevention, January 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (90th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (65th percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source
twitter
11 X users
podcasts
1 podcast

Readers on

mendeley
86 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.
Article details
Title
Exercise programmes to prevent falls among older adults: modelling health gain, cost-utility and equity impacts
Published in
Injury Prevention, January 2018
DOI 10.1136/injuryprev-2016-042309
Pubmed ID
Authors
Abstract

Some falls prevention interventions for the older population appear cost-effective, but there is uncertainty about others. Therefore, we aimed to model three types of exercise programme each running for 25 years among 65+ year olds: (i) a peer-led group-based one; (ii) a home-based one and (iii) a commercial one. An established Markov model for studying falls prevention in New Zealand (NZ) was adapted to estimate incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) in cost per quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) gained. Detailed NZ experimental, epidemiological and cost data were used for the base year 2011. A health system perspective was taken and a discount rate of 3% applied. Intervention effectiveness estimates came from a Cochrane Review. The intervention generating the greatest health gain and costing the least was the home-based exercise programme intervention. Lifetime health gains were estimated at 47 100 QALYs (95%uncertainty interval (UI) 22 300 to 74 400). Cost-effectiveness was high (ICER: US$4640 per QALY gained; (95% UI US$996 to 10 500)), and probably more so than a home safety assessment and modification intervention using the same basic model (ICER: US$6060). The peer-led group-based exercise programme was estimated to generate 42 000 QALYs with an ICER of US$9490. The commercially provided group programme was more expensive and less cost-effective (ICER: US$34 500). Further analyses by sex, age group and ethnicity (Indigenous Māori and non-Māori) for the peer-led group-intervention showed similar health gains and cost-effectiveness. Implementing any of these three types of exercise programme for falls prevention in older people could produce considerable health gain, but with the home-based version being likely to be the most cost-effective.

Login to access the Attention Digest and the Sentiment Analysis related to this output.

Timeline Attention over time Attention Score history
Login to access the full charts related to this output.
Activity
Login to access the full charts related to this output.
X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 11 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley demographics

Mendeley demographics

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 86 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Login to view Mendeley reader trends over time.

Geographical breakdown

Geographical breakdown
Country Count As %
Unknown 86 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status
Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 9 10%
Researcher 9 10%
Student > Master 7 8%
Other 6 7%
Student > Ph. D. Student 6 7%
Other 14 16%
Unknown 35 41%
Readers by discipline
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 12 14%
Nursing and Health Professions 8 9%
Sports and Recreations 5 6%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 3 3%
Psychology 2 2%
Other 13 15%
Unknown 43 50%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 18. 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 17 March 2022.
All research outputs
#2,504,309
of 32,609,759 outputs
Outputs from Injury Prevention
#443
of 2,406 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#45,325
of 481,720 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Injury Prevention
#12
of 35 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 32,609,759 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 92nd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,406 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 22.9. This one has done well, scoring higher than 81% of its peers.
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 481,720 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 90% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 35 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 65% of its contemporaries.