145
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: not found

      Clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of a multifaceted podiatry intervention for falls prevention in older people: a multicentre cohort randomised controlled trial (the REducing Falls with ORthoses and a Multifaceted podiatry intervention trial)

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPMC
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Background

          Falls are a serious cause of morbidity and cost to individuals and society. Evidence suggests that foot problems and inappropriate footwear may increase the risk of falling. Podiatric interventions could help reduce falls; however, there is limited evidence regarding their clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness.

          Objectives

          To determine the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of a multifaceted podiatry intervention for preventing falls in community-dwelling older people at risk of falling, relative to usual care.

          Design

          A pragmatic, multicentred, cohort randomised controlled trial with an economic evaluation and qualitative study.

          Setting

          Nine NHS trusts in the UK and one site in Ireland.

          Participants

          In total, 1010 participants aged ≥ 65 years were randomised (intervention, n = 493; usual care, n = 517) via a secure, remote service. Blinding was not possible.

          Interventions

          All participants received a falls prevention leaflet and routine care from their podiatrist and general practitioner. The intervention also consisted of footwear advice, footwear provision if required, foot orthoses and foot- and ankle-strengthening exercises.

          Main outcome measures

          The primary outcome was the incidence rate of falls per participant in the 12 months following randomisation. The secondary outcomes included the proportion of fallers and multiple fallers, time to first fall, fear of falling, fracture rate, health-related quality of life (HRQoL) and cost-effectiveness.

          Results

          The primary analysis consisted of 484 (98.2%) intervention and 507 (98.1%) usual-care participants. There was a non-statistically significant reduction in the incidence rate of falls in the intervention group [adjusted incidence rate ratio 0.88, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.73 to 1.05; p = 0.16]. The proportion of participants experiencing a fall was lower (50% vs. 55%, adjusted odds ratio 0.78, 95% CI 0.60 to 1.00; p = 0.05). No differences were observed in key secondary outcomes. No serious, unexpected and related adverse events were reported. The intervention costs £252.17 more per participant (95% CI –£69.48 to £589.38) than usual care, was marginally more beneficial in terms of HRQoL measured via the EuroQoL-5 Dimensions [mean quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) difference 0.0129, 95% CI –0.0050 to 0.0314 QALYs] and had a 65% probability of being cost-effective at the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence threshold of £30,000 per QALY gained. The intervention was generally acceptable to podiatrists and trial participants.

          Limitations

          Owing to the difficulty in calculating a sample size for a count outcome, the sample size was based on detecting a difference in the proportion of participants experiencing at least one fall, and not the primary outcome. We are therefore unable to confirm if the trial was sufficiently powered for the primary outcome. The findings are not generalisable to patients who are not receiving podiatry care.

          Conclusions

          The intervention was safe and potentially effective. Although the primary outcome measure did not reach significance, a lower fall rate was observed in the intervention group. The reduction in the proportion of older adults who experienced a fall was of borderline statistical significance. The economic evaluation suggests that the intervention could be cost-effective.

          Future work

          Further research could examine whether or not the intervention could be delivered in group sessions, by physiotherapists, or in high-risk patients.

          Trial registration

          Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN68240461.

          Funding

          This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 21, No. 24. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

          Related collections

          Most cited references28

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: not found
          • Article: not found

          Multiple Imputation after 18+ Years

            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: not found
            • Article: not found

            Guideline for the Prevention of Falls in Older Persons

              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              An abbreviated version of the Connor-Davidson Resilience Scale (CD-RISC), the CD-RISC2: psychometric properties and applications in psychopharmacological trials.

              Resilience may be an important component of the prevention of neuropsychiatric disease. Resilience has proved to be quantifiable by scales such as the Connor-Davidson Resilience Scale (CD-RISC). Here, we introduce a two-item version of this scale, the CD-RISC2. We hypothesize that this shortened version of the scale has internal consistency, test-retest reliability, convergent validity, and divergent validity as well as significant correlation with the full scale. Additionally, we hypothesize that the CD-RISC2 can be used to assess pharmacological modification of resilience. We test these hypotheses by utilizing data from treatment trials of post-traumatic stress disorder, major depression, and generalized anxiety disorder with setraline, mirtazapine, fluoxetine, paroxetine, venlafaxine XR, and kava as well as data from the general population, psychiatric outpatients, and family medicine clinic patients.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Health Technology Assessment
                Health Technol Assess
                National Institute for Health Research
                1366-5278
                2046-4924
                April 2017
                April 2017
                : 21
                : 24
                : 1-198
                Affiliations
                [1 ]York Trials Unit, Department of Health Sciences, University of York, York, UK
                [2 ]Leeds Institute of Rheumatic and Musculoskeletal Medicine, Faculty of Medicine and Health, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK
                [3 ]National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Leeds Musculoskeletal Biomedical Research Unit, Leeds Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust, Leeds, UK
                [4 ]Podiatry Department, Harrogate and District NHS Foundation Trust, Harrogate, UK
                [5 ]Oxford NIHR Biomedical Research Unit, Oxford, UK
                [6 ]Discipline of Podiatric Medicine, National University of Ireland Galway, Galway, Ireland
                [7 ]School of Allied Health, College of Science, Health and Engineering, La Trobe University, Melbourne, VIC, Australia
                [8 ]Podiatry Department, Sheffield Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Sheffield, UK
                Article
                10.3310/hta21240
                5494515
                28621259
                9856bf45-f12c-4cc6-a002-79c53570944b
                © 2017

                Free to read

                http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/doc/non-commercial-government-licence/non-commercial-government-licence.htm

                History

                Comments

                Comment on this article