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

Abstract

Interventions aimed at reducing falls and physical inactivity could alleviate the economic burden attributable to these factors. The study aimed to analyze the cost-effectiveness of a group-delivered version of the Lifestyle-integrated Functional Exercise Program compared with an individually delivered program version. An economic evaluation conducted alongside the LiFE-is-LiFE randomized non-inferiority trial. Group and individually delivered version of a program consisting of strength and balance exercises integrated into everyday activities to prevent falls. 309 community-dwelling older adults (aged ≥70years) at risk of falling recruited around Heidelberg and Stuttgart (Germany). Cost-effectiveness of the group program was assessed over 6months using different effect measures [quality-adjusted life years (QALYs, EQ-5D-5L), physical activity (mean number of steps/day), and falls] and cost perspectives (societal and payer's). Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios were determined, and cost-effectiveness acceptability curves were constructed. From a societal perspective, mean costs, the number of falls, and the number of steps/day were somewhat higher in the group program, whereas QALYs were almost identical between the 2 interventions. From the payer's perspective, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for the group compared to the individual program were €56,733 per QALY and €4755 per fall prevented. Based on the cost-effectiveness acceptability curves, the cost-effectiveness of the group program had to be rated as uncertain for both effect measures and perspectives. In contrast, it demonstrated cost-effectiveness for increasing physical activity at willingness-to-pay values per additional 1000 steps/day of €1600 (societal perspective) or €600 (payer's perspective). Compared to the individual program, the group program might be cost-effective for increasing physical activity in older adults but was unlikely to be cost-effective with regard to QALY or for preventing falls. The cost-effectiveness should be evaluated long-term and compared to a regular care group.