Cited by 58Balance, Gait, and Falls PreventionHealth Systems, Economic Evaluations, Quality of LifeHealth Policy Implementation Science

Why modelling a complex intervention is an important precursor to trial design: lessons from studying an intervention to reduce falls-related injuries in older people

Open access
Eldridge, Sandra, Spencer, Anne, Cryer, Colin, Parsons, Suzanne, Underwood, Martin, Feder, Gene·2005·Journal of Health Services Research & Policy

Abstract

Objectives: To develop a cost-effectiveness model of a complex intervention from pilot study data in order to inform the viability and design of a subsequent falls prevention trial. Methods: We used two models; the first estimated the probability of falling over a 12-month period based on a probability tree; the second used Markov simulation to assess the impact of the programme over time. Results: The first model indicated that our intervention would reduce the proportion falling by only 2.8% over a 12-month period. The major reason for this small effect was that less than a quarter of older people at risk of falling were assessed using our screening tool. Even if policy-makers were willing to spend £30,000 per quality-adjusted life-year gained, there is only a 40% chance that the intervention would be cost-effective. Sensitivity analyses showed that the only scenarios that produced a substantial increase in the effect of the intervention were those in which all older people are assessed. Conclusions: The model-building approach described in this paper is vital when designing complex trials and where a trial is not possible. Information from the modelling can be used to re-design the intervention. The effectiveness of our proposed intervention appears very small due to its inability to reach those at risk of falling. It is most likely not to be cost-effective. If inability to reach the target group is a weakness common to other similar interventions, this suggests an area for further research.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1258/1355819054338942

Cites

23 of 23 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

1 retracted

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Eldridge, S., Spencer, A., Cryer, C., Parsons, S., Underwood, M., & Feder, G.
Affiliations
  • Queen Mary University of London (GB)
  • University of Kent (GB)
Venue
Journal of Health Services Research & Policy
Published
2005-07-01
Volume
10
Issue
3
Pages
133-142
ISSN
  • 1355-8196 (ISSN-L)
  • 1758-1060
OpenAlex
W2073433200
Cited by
58
References
23
Citations by year
2025: 2 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 5 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 4 · 2020: 1 · 2019: 2 · 2018: 2 · 2016: 3 · 2015: 2 · 2014: 6 · 2013: 5 · 2012: 8
FWCI
8.20
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of Health Services Research & Policy (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Research Explorer (The University of Manchester) (publishedVersion)
  • Figshare (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • Kent Academic Repository (University of Kent) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Physical Therapy, Sports Therapy and Rehabilitation › Balance, Gait, and Falls Prevention
  • Social Sciences › Economics, Econometrics and Finance › Economics and Econometrics › Health Systems, Economic Evaluations, Quality of Life
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Health Policy Implementation Science
Keywords
fall prevention, older adults, fall-related injuries, complex interventions, cost-effectiveness modelling, trial design, fall risk screening, probability trees, intervention feasibility, quality-adjusted life years
MeSH terms
Accidental Falls, Aged, Aged, 80 and over, Cost-Benefit Analysis, Decision Support Techniques, United Kingdom, Humans, Markov Chains, Pilot Projects, State Medicine

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review