Skip to main content

Table 3 Data fields extracted by previous systematic reviews of community-based falls prevention economic evaluations1

From: Economic evaluation of community-based falls prevention interventions for older populations: a systematic methodological overview of systematic reviews

Data fields

Systematic reviews

RCN [17]

Davis [30]

DJ [34]

PHE [31]

Olij [32]

Huter [35]

Winser [33]

(A) Setting, population and evaluation framework

Author(s) and publication year

ËŸ

ËŸ

ËŸ

ËŸ

ËŸ

ËŸ

ËŸ

Country/region

ËŸ

ËŸ

 

ËŸ

ËŸ

 

ËŸ

Study design (e.g., model, RCT)

ËŸ

ËŸ

ËŸ

ËŸ

ËŸ

 

ËŸ

TP/sample residence

ËŸ

ËŸ

ËŸ

ËŸ

ËŸ

 

ËŸ

TP/sample age and sex

ËŸ

ËŸ

ËŸ

ËŸ

ËŸ

 

ËŸ

Type of analysis (e.g., CUA)

 

ËŸ

ËŸ

ËŸ

ËŸ

ËŸ

ËŸ

Perspective (e.g., societal)

 

ËŸ

ËŸ

ËŸ

ËŸ

ËŸ

ËŸ

Time horizon/Follow-up period

 

ËŸ

ËŸ

ËŸ

ËŸ

 

ËŸ

Discount rates

 

ËŸ

 

ËŸ

ËŸ

 

ËŸ

Number of fields

5

9

7

9

9

3

9

(B) Falls epidemiology

TP/sample falls risk factor(s)

 

ËŸ

 

ËŸ

ËŸ

 

ËŸ

Baseline falls risk estimates

    

ËŸ

  

Main health event (e.g., fall type)

ËŸ

ËŸ

ËŸ

ËŸ

ËŸ

 

ËŸ

Health utility instrument

    

ËŸ

 

ËŸ

Wider (e.g., non-health) outcomes

     

ËŸ

 

Health and social care consequence types

 

a

ËŸ

 

ËŸ

 

ËŸ

Societal consequence types

 

a

ËŸ

 

ËŸ

ËŸ

ËŸ

All-cause/comorbidity costs

 

a

   

ËŸ

 

Cost measurement method in RCT

    

ËŸ

  

Number of fields

1

5

3

2

7

3

5

(C) Falls prevention intervention

Intervention type

ËŸ

ËŸ

ËŸ

ËŸ

ËŸ

 

ËŸ

Primary vs. secondary prevention

   

ËŸ

   

Intervention components

 

ËŸ

 

ËŸ

ËŸ

 

ËŸ

Intervention duration

 

ËŸ

 

ËŸ

  

ËŸ

Exercise intervention dosage

      

ËŸ

Professional staff involved

 

ËŸ

 

ËŸ

  

ËŸ

Comparator

 

ËŸ

ËŸ

ËŸ

ËŸ

 

ËŸ

Participant recruitment method/setting

 

ËŸ

 

ËŸ

  

ËŸ

Falls risk identification method

   

ËŸ

   

Intervention resource use

 

ËŸ

 

ËŸ

  

ËŸ

Intervention cost

 

b

ËŸ

ËŸ

  

ËŸ

Societal intervention resource/cost

     

ËŸ

ËŸ

Intervention fall-related efficacy

 

ËŸ

 

ËŸ

  

ËŸ

Intervention study sample size

 

ËŸ

ËŸ

ËŸ

ËŸ

 

ËŸ

Number of fields

1

10

4

12

4

1

12

(D) Decision model features

Model type

  

ËŸ

ËŸ

ËŸ

  

Model data sources

  

ËŸ

ËŸ

   

Characterising baseline falls risk estimates

    

ËŸ

  

Number of fields

0

0

2

2

2

0

0

(E) Evaluation methods and results

Cost-per-unit ratio (e.g., ICER)

ËŸ

ËŸ

ËŸ

ËŸ

ËŸ

 

ËŸ

Aggregate cost and health outcomes2

 

ËŸ

 

ËŸ

  

ËŸ

Original currency type

 

ËŸ

ËŸ

   

ËŸ

Converted results into same currency

 

ËŸ

ËŸ

 

ËŸ

  

Subgroup/targeting methods/results

 

ËŸ

 

ËŸ

ËŸ

 

ËŸ

Handling parameter uncertainty3

 

ËŸ

 

ËŸ

ËŸ

 

ËŸ

Scenario analysis methods/results4

   

ËŸ

   

Equity analysis methods/results

   

ËŸ

   

Number of fields

1

6

3

6

4

0

5

(F) Discussions by evaluation authors

Generalisability and policy implementation

  

ËŸ

ËŸ

   

Strengths and limitations

  

ËŸ

ËŸ

 

ËŸ

 

Number of fields

0

0

2

2

0

1

0

Total number of fields

8

30

21

33

26

8

31

  1. Abbreviation: CUA cost-utility analysis, DJ Dubas-Jakobczyk, ICER incremental cost-effectiveness ratio, PHE Public Health England, RCN Royal College of Nursing, RCT randomized controlled trial, TP target population
  2. 1This table does not account for data fields extracted by reviews for applying a quality assessment checklist
  3. 2Includes outcomes such as total intervention cost and total number of falls prevented
  4. 3ncludes one-/two-way deterministic sensitivity analysis and probabilistic sensitivity analysis
  5. 4Analysis of alternative modelling assumptions: e.g., whether fear of falling exerts a health utility decrement
  6. aDistinguished between fall-related and all-cause care cost and reported detailed list: emergency department; hospitalization; outpatient visit; GP visit; district nurse visit; home care; equipment; meal-on-wheel; day care centre; residential care; nursing home; patient and caregiver’s cost (out-of-pocket expenditure, time cost)
  7. bReported detailed list of intervention resources for costing: recruitment; marketing; printing; development; administration; overheads; staff labour; staff transport; training; equipment; home modification; specialist service (e.g., cataract operation); comparator intervention resource/cost