Cost-Effectiveness of a Group vs Individually Delivered Exercise Program in Community-Dwelling Persons Aged ≥70 Years

Budget impact analysis of a Lifestyle-integrated Functional Exercise (LiFE) program for older people in Germany: a Markov model based on data from the LiFE-is-LiFE trial

BACKGROUND

Fall prevention is important for healthy ageing, but the economic impact of fall prevention are scarcely investigated. A recent cost-effectiveness analysis compared a group-delivered Lifestyle-integrated Functional Exercise Program (gLiFE) with an individually-delivered program (LiFE) in community-dwelling people (aged ≥ 70 years) at risk of falling. In addition, the current study aimed to analyze the budget impact of LiFE and gLiFE, compared with standard care in Germany.

METHODS

A Markov model was developed to reflect falls and associated care needs for community-dwelling persons over 5 years. The intervention effects of LiFE and gLiFE were shown to be equivalent in a non-inferiority trial, although the costs differed. Outpatient, inpatient, and intervention costs were assessed from a payer's perspective. The effect of parameter uncertainty was assessed in sensitivity analyses.

RESULTS

The budget impact due to intervention costs was €510 million for LiFE and €186 million for gLiFE. Over five years, health care expenditures were €35,008 million for those receiving standard care, €35,416 million for those receiving LiFE, and €35,091 million for persons receiving gLiFE. Thereby, LiFE and gLiFE could prevent 2700 deaths and 648,000 falls over 5 years. Parameter uncertainties in the risk of falling, uptake of an intervention offer, and in the intervention effects had a major influence; thus cost savings for LiFE and gLiFE compared with standard care could be achieved for individuals with a high risk of falling.

CONCLUSIONS

The results revealed that cost savings for LiFE and gLiFE compared with standard care could only be achieved for individuals at high risk of falling, with gLiFE being superior to LiFE. Future research should consider benefits and aspects of fall prevention beyond falls (e.g., physical activity, social aspects, and personal preferences of participants).

TRIAL REGISTRATION

The study was preregistered under underclinicaltrials.gov (identifier: NCT03462654) on 12th March 2018; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03462654 .

"Can Do" vs. "Do Do" in Older Adults: A Cross-Sectional Analysis of Sensor-Derived Physical Activity Patterns

(1) Background: Identifying groups with a misaligned physical capacity (PC) and physical activity (PA) is potentially relevant for health promotion. Although an important health determinant, deeper knowledge of underlying walking behavior patterns in older adults is currently missing. We aim to identify specific PA signatures of misaligned groups and determine PA variables discriminating between groups. (2) Methods: In total, 294 community-dwelling older adults (≥70 years) were divided into four quadrants based on thresholds for PA (≥ or <5000 steps/day) and PC (≤ or >12 s, Timed Up and Go test). Kruskal-Wallis and effect sizes were calculated to compare quadrants' PA variables and to determine the discriminative power of PA parameters on walking duration, frequency, and intensity. (3) Results: We identified quadrant-specific PA signatures. Compared with "can do-do do", the "cannot do-do do" group performs shorter continuous and lower-intensity walks; the "can do-do not do" group takes fewer steps and walks with less intensity. The "cannot do-do not do" group presents lower values in all PA variables. "Walking duration greater or equal 3 METs" was the strongest discriminative PA variable. (4) Conclusion: We provide distinct PA signatures for four clinically different groups of older adults. Walking intensity is most useful to distinguish community-dwelling older adults, which is relevant for developing improved customized health promotion interventions.

Comparison of falls and cost-effectiveness of the group versus individually delivered Lifestyle-integrated Functional Exercise (LiFE) program: final results from the LiFE-is-LiFE non-inferiority trial

BACKGROUND

the individually delivered Lifestyle-integrated Functional Exercise (LiFE) was shown to improve physical activity (PA) and reduce fall incidence, however being rather resource-consuming due to one-to-one delivery. A potentially less resource-intensive group format (gLiFE) was developed and compared against the original program, considering higher risk of falling due to possible PA enhancement.

OBJECTIVE

to investigate non-inferiority in terms of PA-adjusted fall risk and cost-effectiveness of gLiFE at 12-month follow-up.

DESIGN

single-blinded, randomised, multi-centre non-inferiority trial.

SETTING

community.

SUBJECTS

in total, 309 adults aged 70+ years at risk of or with history of falling; n = 153 in gLiFE, n = 156 in LiFE.

METHODS

LiFE was delivered one-to-one at the participants' homes, gLiFE in a group. PA-adjusted fall risk was analysed using negative binomial regression to compare incidence rate ratios (IRR). Cost-effectiveness was presented by incremental cost-effectiveness ratios and cost-effectiveness acceptability curves, considering quality-adjusted life years, PA and falls as effect measures. Secondary analyses included PA (steps/day) and fall outcomes.

RESULTS

non-inferiority was inconclusive (IRR 0.96; 95% confidence interval, CI 0.67; 1.37); intervention costs were lower for gLiFE, but cost-effectiveness was uncertain. gLiFE participants significantly increased PA (+1,090 steps/day; 95% CI 345 and 1.835) versus insignificant increase in LiFE (+569, 95% CI -31; 1,168). Number of falls and fallers were reduced in both formats.

CONCLUSION

non-inferiority of gLiFE compared with LiFE was inconclusive after 12 months. Increases in PA were clinically relevant in both groups, although nearly twice as high in gLiFE. Despite lower intervention costs of gLiFE, it was not clearly superior in terms of cost-effectiveness.

Willingness to pay for a group and an individual version of the Lifestyle-integrated Functional Exercise program from a participant perspective

BACKGROUND

Perceived benefits of intervention programs from a participant perspective can be examined by assessing their willingness to pay (WTP). Aiming to support decision-makers in their decision to implement a fall prevention program, this study examined (1) the WTP for a group-based and an individually delivered fall prevention program, (2) which factors influence WTP, and (3) whether the WTP exceeds the intervention costs.

METHODS

WTP was elicited using Payment Cards from 237 individuals who participated in a randomized non-inferiority trial (LiFE-is-LiFE) comparing a group version of the Lifestyle-integrated Functional Exercise program (gLiFE) with the individually delivered version (LiFE). Linear regression models were used to examine factors associated with WTP. The net benefit for (g)LiFE was calculated as the difference between WTP and intervention costs, assuming different scenarios of intervention costs (varying group sizes of gLiFE) and hypothetical subsidy levels by a payer (€0, €50, or €75).

RESULTS

The mean WTP was €196 (95% CI [172, 221]) for gLiFE and €228 (95% CI [204, 251]) for LiFE. In the linear regression model, WTP was significantly associated with delivery format (-€32, 95% CI [- 65, - 0.2], for gLiFE) and net household income (+ 68€, 95% CI [23, 113], for ≥€3000 compared to <€2000). The net benefit for gLiFE was positive in most cases. Due to higher intervention costs of LiFE compared to gLiFE (€298 vs. €113), the net benefit for LiFE was negative for the majority of the sample, even at a subsidy of €75.

CONCLUSION

The results provide insight into how valuable the interventions are perceived by the participants and thereby may be used by decision-makers as complement to cost-effectiveness analyses. WTP for both programs was generally high, probably indicating that participants perceived the intervention as quite valuable. However, further research is needed on the WTP and net benefit of fall prevention programs, as results relied on the specific context of the LiFE-is-LiFE trial.

Group-Based and Individually Delivered LiFE: Content Evaluation and Predictors of Training Response – A Dose-Response Analysis

Introduction

Material and Methods

Results

Discussion and Conclusion

Trial Registration