4.0 Article

Effectiveness and economic evaluation of a nurse delivered home exercise programme to prevent falls. 2: Controlled trial in multiple centres

Journal

BRITISH MEDICAL JOURNAL
Volume 322, Issue 7288, Pages 701-704

Publisher

BRITISH MED JOURNAL PUBL GROUP
DOI: 10.1136/bmj.322.7288.701

Keywords

-

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objectives To assess the effectiveness of trained nurses based in general practices individually prescribing a home exercise programme to reduce falls and injuries in elderly people and to estimate the cost effectiveness of the programme. Design Controlled trial with one year's follow up. Setting 32 general practices in seven southern New Zealand centres. Participants 450 women and men aged 80 years and older. Intervention 330 participants received the exercise programme (exercise centres) and 120 received usual care (control centres); 87% (371 of 426) completed the trial. Main outcome measures Number of falls, number of injuries resulting from falls, costs of implementing the programme, and hospital costs as a result of falls. Results Falls were reduced by 30% in the exercise centres (incidence rate ratio 0.70, 95% confidence interval 0.59 to 0.84). The programme was equally effective in men and women. The programme cost $NZ418 (pound 121) (at 1998 prices) per person to deliver for one year or $NZ1519 (pound 441) per fall prevented. Fewer participants had falls resulting in injuries, but there was no difference in the number who had serious injuries and no difference in hospital costs resulting from falls in exercise centres compared with control centres. Conclusions An individually tailored exercise programme, delivered by trained nurses from within general practices, was effective in reducing falls in three different centres, This strategy should be combined with other successful interventions to form part of home programmes to prevent falls in elderly people.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.0
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available