2020
DOI: 10.1016/j.rehab.2019.06.012
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Dosage for cost-effective exercise-based falls prevention programs for older people: A systematic review of economic evaluations

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1

Citation Types

0
41
0

Year Published

2020
2020
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
6
2
2

Relationship

0
10

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 34 publications
(51 citation statements)
references
References 48 publications
0
41
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Regarding the second primary outcome, intervention costs of several exercise-based fall prevention programs have already been determined as part of economic analyses [35]. However, such economic analyses have not been performed for the LiFE program, yet, despite the high effectivity of this program for reducing falls and increasing PA [14].…”
Section: Primary Outcomesmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Regarding the second primary outcome, intervention costs of several exercise-based fall prevention programs have already been determined as part of economic analyses [35]. However, such economic analyses have not been performed for the LiFE program, yet, despite the high effectivity of this program for reducing falls and increasing PA [14].…”
Section: Primary Outcomesmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Therefore, previously available cost findings may be used as a reference. Comparing the cost findings of our study with the previous study is limited due to the individual differences in the healthcare system, culture, healthcare policies, the resources of each country and the base year of cost estimation (22). In contrast to the previously published study (6), we used SARA to estimate disease severity.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 91%
“…Most prevalent issues were the non-provision of the list of excluded studies (item 5), the lack of assessment of publication bias (item 10), and whether the reviews adequately considered the scienti c/methodological quality of included studies in formulating conclusions (item 8). Limitations acknowledged by the review authors included: limited search coverage (27)(28)(29)(30); lack of quantitative meta-analysis (27,29); non-assessment of publication bias (27,28); and limited assessment of the quality of underlying clinical studies (27,28).…”
Section: Critical Appraisal Of Previous Systematic Review Methodologymentioning
confidence: 99%