Search

Objective: To develop an early economics evaluation (EEE) to assess the cost‐effectiveness of the GS in reducing the RoF and FoF. Methods: A cost‐effectiveness analysis (CEA) with a return on investment (RoI) estimation was performed. CEA used the most relevant parameters, such as increased gait speed and decreased FoF, to estimate the reduction in the RoF, the impact on health care resources used and financial implications for the National Health System in the United Kingdom. Outcomes were measured as incremental cost‐effectiveness ratio per quality‐adjusted life years (QALYs) gained based on the reduction of the RoF and FoF. Uncertainties around the main parameters used were evaluated by probabilistic sensitivity analysis. Results: The CEA results showed that the GS is a dominant strategy over the standard of care to improve the movements of older persons who have suffered a fall or are afraid of falling (incremental QALYs based on FoF = 0.77 and QALYs based on RoF = 1.07, cost of FoF = ‐£4479.57 and cost of RoF = ‐£2901.79). By implementing the GS, the ROI results suggest that every pound invested in the GS could result in cost savings of £1.85/patient based on the RoF reduction and £11.16/patient based on the FoF reduction. The probability of being cost saving based on the number of iterations were 79.4 percent (based on FoF) and 100 percent (based on RoF). Conclusion: The EEE supports the main hypothesis that the GS is an effective intervention to avoid falls and is potentially cost saving. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]