Original ResearchEconomic analysis of a community-based falls prevention program
Introduction
In developed countries, falls are the major cause of unintentional injury among people aged 65 years and older, with approximately 30% of the older adult population experiencing a fall each year.1 Not only are falls among older people associated with a range of complications such as fractures, but repeated falls are also associated with increased functional disability.2 This can lead to higher levels of dependency and care, making falls a strong predictor of institutionalization.3 The relative ageing of populations in developed countries is likely to see the costs associated with falls increase dramatically over the next 20 years. Cost-effective interventions to prevent falls are therefore potentially an attractive investment for health services wishing to reduce preventable demand on clinical resources.
A number of strategies are known to reduce the incidence of falls among older people. These include increasing physical activity and balance, reviewing medication use to minimize side-effects such as postural hypotension, home modifications such as safety rails, and encouraging the use of appropriate eye-ware. 4 However, few studies have examined the effectiveness of falls prevention strategies targeting multiple risk factors across the general older community. There is also little evidence on the economic implications of either targeted or community-based interventions.
This paper reports the economic analysis of ‘Stay on Your Feet’ (SOYF), a community-based falls prevention program targeting older people at all levels of risk. SOYF was undertaken during the period 1992 to 1996 in the North Coast region of New South Wales (NSW), Australia. At this time the region had a population of approximately 400 000, including approximately 90 000 people aged over 60 years. The area ranges from large regional centres to small, remote rural communities. The program comprised a multi-strategic, community-based intervention targeting all people aged over 60 years and living independently. It placed an emphasis on the involvement of older people and has been described in detail elsewhere.5
Initial evaluation of SOYF included prospective analysis of a representative sample of 2000 older people within the intervention region, and comparison with a similar cohort of 1600 older people living in the Sunshine Coast region of the state of Queensland. This region was selected because of its demographic and geographic similarity to the intervention region, and because there were no existing or planned falls prevention activities.6 A number of cross-sectional telephone surveys were also undertaken and revealed significant changes at a population level in awareness and self-reported behaviour within 18 months of the program commencing. This was maintained throughout the life of the program and was followed by a non-significant reduction in the number of self-reported falls. These changes were accompanied by a statistically significant 20% reduction in falls-related hospital admissions in subjects over 60 years of age at the completion of the program, compared with both the control community and the state of New South Wales as a whole.7 This occurred despite the intervention not targeting or involving hospital-based staff.
Since this evaluation, SOYF strategies have been adopted as the basis for major health promotion interventions in other states of Australia, New Zealand and Canada.
Section snippets
Methods
A cost–benefit analysis was used to evaluate the program. This enables health services and governments to compare the return on their investment in SOYF with other possible uses of the health dollar. Two approaches were used.
Method one: A cost–benefit analysis was constructed based on hospital admissions rates in the intervention region compared to the interstate control region used in the initial SOYF evaluation.
Method two: Hospital utilization within the intervention region, as measured by
Estimation of the costs
Direct program costs are shown in Table 1. General infrastructure and management costs have been included as SOYF overheads. The allocation of overheads to SOYF distribution was determined by the proportional size of the SOYF program relative to total activity as measured by dollars spent.16 The annual SOYF costs including overheads were summed and converted to 1995/96 dollars using an 8% discount rate. The estimated cost was A$781 829.
In addition to public costs, private costs associated with
Discussion
These results suggest that the Stay on Your Feet program was highly cost effective in preventing falls among older people. Our two estimates are consistent, although the approach used in method two was more conservative than method one. These results are also generally consistent with the findings of the earlier evaluation of SOYF.7 The confidence interval around our estimates is small, and when the upper confidence limit for the intervention SCR is used in method two, the total estimated
Acknowledgements
The team would like to acknowledge the role of Anne Kempton and Everald Garner in developing and implementing the Stay on Your Feet Program. Without their vision and determination many more people would have suffered the consequences of preventable falls. Liz Patterson and Elizabeth Eakin also contributed significantly to the program's more recent reinvigoration. We would also like to thank Therese Dunn and Vesna Dunne for their help with the calculations used in method one and to thank Gary
References (21)
Intervention strategies and risk-factor modification for falls prevention. A review of recent intervention studies
Clin Ger Med
(2002)- et al.
Designing an evaluation for a multiple-strategy community intervention: the North Coast Stay on Your Feet program
Aust NZJ Public Health
(1998) - et al.
The cost-effectiveness of home assessment and modification to reduce falls in the elderly
Aust NZJ Public Health
(1998) - et al.
A multifactorial intervention to reduce the risk of falling among elderly people living in the community
NEJM
(1994) - et al.
Mortality, disability, and falls in older persons: the role of underlying disease and disability
Am J Public Health
(1992) Falls, injuries due to falls, and the risk of admission to a nursing home
NEJM
(1997)- et al.
Strategies to prevent falls: the Stay on Your Feet program
Health Prom J Australia
(1996) - et al.
Older people can stay on their feet: final results of a community-based falls prevention programme
Health Promot Int
(2000) - et al.
The cost effectiveness of a home hazard reduction program to reduce falls among the old persons
Aust NZJ Public Health
(2000) - Mathers C, Penn R. Health system costs of injury, poisoning and musculoskeletal disorders in Australia 1993–94....
Cited by (29)
Systematic review of unintentional injury prevention economic evaluations 2010–2019 and comparison to 1998–2009
2020, Accident Analysis and PreventionCitation Excerpt :The findings and conclusions in this report are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official position of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Albert et al. (2016), Beard et al. (2006), Boswell et al. (2001), Brandt et al. (2002), Cafiso and D’agostino (2016), Camden et al. (2018), Carande-Kulis et al. (2015), Carter et al. (2015), Chen (2005), Church et al. (2012), Church et al. (2015), Claros et al. (2017), Colon-Emeric et al. (2003), Cooper et al. (2012), Daniels et al. (2019), Day et al. (2004), De Pauw et al. (2018), Eastridge et al. (2006), Frick et al. (2010b), Gandjour and Weyler (2008), Ginnelly et al. (2005), Goldstein et al. (2008), Graham and Chang (2015), Griffin et al. (2016), Haddix et al. (2001), Haines et al. (2009), Han et al. (2007), Harper et al. (2016), Hektoen et al. (2009), Honkanen et al. (2006), 2005, Isaranuwatchai et al. (2017), Johansson et al. (2008), Keall et al. (2017), Kedikoglou et al. (2005), Khan et al. (2019), Kopjar and Wickizer (2000), Kumar and Parker (2000), Lahausse and Fildes (2009), Li and Harmer (2015), Lindqvist and Lindholm (2001), Meuleners et al. (2008), Meyer et al. (2005), Miller et al. (2004), 2006, Miller et al. (2007), Mills et al. (2018), Myers et al. (2018), 2009, Myers et al. (2004), Pana-Cryan and Myers (2000), Ran et al. (2018), Redelmeier and Weinstein (1999), Robertson et al. (2001a), b, Robertson et al. (2001c), Rodgers and Leland (2008), Salkeld et al. (2000), Segui-Gomez et al. (2002), Singh et al. (2004), Smith and Widiatmoko (1998), Spetz et al. (2007), Spicer et al. (2004), Steinbach et al. (2013), Stollenwerk et al. (2014), Taylor and Scuffham (2002), Thompson et al. (2002), Tompa et al. (2016), Verhagen et al. (2005), Viamonte et al. (2006), Woods et al. (2008) and Zacker and Shea (1998). Mallika Mahalingam: Conceptualization, Methodology, Writing - original draft.
Reliability and validity of an enhanced paper grip test; A simple clinical test for assessing lower limb strength
2020, Gait and PostureCitation Excerpt :Thirty percent of the general population over the age of 65 have at least one fall every year [1] and this figure is even higher in people with diabetes [2–4]. Strong evidence suggests that access to preventative care for falls, including multifactorial falls risk assessment and targeted strength and balance training, could lead to a substantial reduction in falls and savings for national health systems [5–8]. Falling for the first time sets in motion a cycle of increased fear of falling, reduced activity and loss of strength leading to a higher risk for further falls.
Systematic review and quality assessment of economic evaluation studies of injury prevention
2012, Accident Analysis and PreventionCitation Excerpt :In all articles the objective of the study was stated clearly, but most times a research question was not explicitly reported. There were only six studies that justified the choice of form of economic evaluation used (Zacker and Shea, 1998; Pana-Cryan and Myers, 2000; Robertson et al., 2001a; Taylor and Scuffham, 2002b; Beard et al., 2006; Hektoen et al., 2009). The ultimate aim of an economic evaluation is to determine which option provides the best value of money.
Cost-effectiveness of a multidisciplinary fall prevention program in community-dwelling elderly people: A randomized controlled trial (ISRCTN 64716113)
2008, International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health CarePopulation-based interventions for preventing falls and fall-related injuries in older people
2024, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews