Table 4.
Results of one way sensitivity analyses
| Scenario | Outcomes | Twice weekly balance and tone | Once weekly resistance training | Twice weekly resistance training |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Available case analysis (n=103) | Mean cost* (2008 CAD $) | 1812 [1637,1987] | 1419 [1267,1571] | 1599 [1496,1701] |
|
| ||||
| This included all individuals who had complete falls and cost data | Mean incremental cost (2008 CAD $) | reference | −393 [−370, −416] | −213 [−141, −286] |
| Number of falls | 24 | 18 | 20 | |
| Cost/fall prevented | reference | dominatesý | dominatesý | |
| Available case analysis (n=99) | Mean cost (2008 CAD $) | 1812 [1637,1987] | 1443 [1289,1599] | 1659 [1552,1766] |
| This included all individuals who had complete SF-6D and cost data | Mean incremental cost (2008 CAD $) | reference | −369 [−348, −388] | −153 [−85, −221] |
| Mean unadjusted QALY | 0.702 [0.694,0.710] | 0.699 [0.689,0.710] | 0.700 [0.689,0.712] | |
| Adjusted QALYÝ | reference | 0.011 [0.000,0.016] | 0.005 [0,0.007] | |
| Available case analysis (n=84) | Mean cost (2008 CAD $) | 1880 [1681,2080] | 1522 [1350,1696] | 1665 [1542,1788] |
| This included all individuals who had complete EQ-5D and cost data | Mean incremental cost (2008 CAD $) | reference | −358 [−331, −384] | −215 [−139, −292] |
| Mean QALY (EQ-5D) | 0.816 [0.785,0.846] | 0.814 [0.777,0.850] | 0.855 [0.835,0.875] | |
| Unadjusted incremental QALY (EQ-5D) | reference | −0.002 [−0.008,0.004] | 0.039 [0.029,0.05] | |
| Adjusted incremental QALY | reference | 0.009 [−0.073,0.079] | 0.018 [0.002,0.036] | |
| Fall related healthcare costs only | Mean (SD) fall related healthcare resource use cost (2008 CAD $) | 162 [158,165] | 547 [537,557] | 184 [180,188] |
| This included only fall related costs that were check by individuals as a falls related event | Mean incremental costs for fall related healthcare resource use (2008 CAD $) | reference | 385 [375,388] | 22 [12,25] |
| Excluding 1 outlier in twice weekly balance and tone group | Mean cost (2008 CAD $) | 1772 [1635,1909] | 1380 [1270,1489] | 1676 [1581,1772] |
| This analysis excluded the outlier who fell 6 times | Mean incremental cost (2008 CAD $) | reference | −392 [−365, −420] | −96 [−54, −137] |
*
Total health resource utilization mean costs
Ý
Adjusted for imbalances in baseline utility between the three treatment arms of the Brain Power randomized controlled trial
ý
For these strategies it was not appropriate to calculate an incremental cost effectiveness ratio because the intervention strategy were less costly and more effective than the balance and tone comparator (i.e., the intervention dominates the comparator in each of these cases)