Search

Your search keyword '"Pega, Frank"' showing total 108 results
Start Over Author "Pega, Frank"
108 results on '"Pega, Frank"'

102. 9. 'Media surveillance of the natives': A New Zealand case study-Lake Taupo air space.

Author

Nairn, Raymond, McCreanor, Tim, Rankine, Jenny, Barnes, Angela Moewaka, Pega, Frank, and Gregory, Amanda

Subjects
MASS media, SOCIAL interaction, INDIGENOUS peoples, MAORI (New Zealand people), NEWSPAPERS, TELEVISION programs, MODERN society, SOCIAL action
Abstract

Research has shown news media in post-colonial societies such as Aotearoa New Zealand naturalise the colonising processes by which settler values and social organisation were imposed and the resulting marginalised status of the indigenous peoples. We explore these processes in news reports that claimed Maori wanted to charge for airspace over Lake Taupo. Studying headlines, the originating newspaper article, and subsequent television reports, we show how Māori were constructed as threatening the ability of 'New Zealanders' to enjoy the lake. That threat was constructed as imminent although the accounts included no direct evidence or identified source for the reported demand. We consider the one-sided coverage inaccurate, unbalanced and unfair, encouraging perceptions of Māori as hostile and disruptive social actors in our contemporary society. Wider implications of this media performance for this crucial area of social relations are considered. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Published
2009

104. Modelling the global economic costs of tobacco product waste.

Author

Juleen Lam, Schneider, John, Shadbegian, Ron, Pega, Frank, St Claire, Simone, and Novotny, Thomas E.

Subjects
*ENVIRONMENTAL health laws, *HEALTH policy, *CONSERVATION of natural resources, *PLASTICS, *POLLUTANTS, *MIDDLE-income countries, *INDUSTRIAL wastes, *HAZARDOUS substances, *WASTE management, *OCCUPATIONAL exposure, *SURVEYS, *RESPONSIBILITY, *LOW-income countries, *WAGES, *TOBACCO products, *NATURE
Abstract

Tobacco smoking continues to cause considerable premature mortality and morbidity worldwide. Most of the approximately six trillion cigarettes sold globally each year are discarded improperly as toxic environmental waste. Tobacco product waste, including cigarette butts, is the most commonly collected waste item worldwide. Of particular concern is the cellulose acetate filter, a poorly degradable plastic additive attached to most commercially manufactured cigarettes. This filter was introduced by the tobacco industry to reduce smokers' perception of harm and risk but it has no health benefit. To inform health policy and practice and improve public health outcomes, governments and society can benefit from cost estimates of preventing, properly disposing of and/or cleaning up tobacco product waste. Estimating the costs of tobacco product waste to communities and responsible authorities could encourage the development of health, environmental and fiscal policy interventions and shift accountability for the costs of tobacco product waste onto the global tobacco industry. To support health and environmental policy-making, we therefore propose an empirical approach to estimate the economic costs of tobacco product waste based on its negative environmental externalities. We first present general estimates for six representative countries and then identify data gaps that need to be addressed to develop global estimates. Interventions against tobacco product waste may be new channels to regulate tobacco products across sectors -- for example, health, environment and finance -- and consequently reduce overall tobacco use. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Published
2022
Full Text
View/download PDF

105. The effect of exposure to long working hours on depression: A systematic review and meta-analysis from the WHO/ILO Joint Estimates of the Work-related Burden of Disease and Injury

Author

Martijn Schouteden, Lode Godderis, Yves Roquelaure, Johannes Siegrist, Fernando Pico, Diana Gagliardi, Bradley A. Evanoff, Akizumi Tsutsumi, Alexis Descatha, Reiner Rugulies, Seong-Kyu Kang, John Pell, Matteo Ronchetti, Linda L. Magnusson Hanson, Grace Sembajwe, Yuka Ujita, Anna Ozguler, Frank Pega, Fabio Boccuni, Daniela Vianna Pachito, Sergio Iavicoli, Beon Joon Kim, Cristina Di Tecco, Alessandro Marinaccio, Clément Duret, Jian Li, Michael Baer, National Research Centre for the Working Environment (NRCWE), University of Copenhagen = Københavns Universitet (KU), Istituto Nazionale per l’Assicurazione contro gli Infortuni sul Lavoro [Italian Workers Compensation Authority] (INAIL), National Cancer Center Research Institute [Tokyo], Universidad Autonoma de Madrid (UAM), Institut de recherche en santé, environnement et travail (Irset), Université d'Angers (UA)-Université de Rennes 1 (UR1), Université de Rennes (UNIV-RENNES)-Université de Rennes (UNIV-RENNES)-École des Hautes Études en Santé Publique [EHESP] (EHESP)-Institut National de la Santé et de la Recherche Médicale (INSERM)-Structure Fédérative de Recherche en Biologie et Santé de Rennes ( Biosit : Biologie - Santé - Innovation Technologique ), Vieillissement et Maladies chroniques : approches épidémiologique et de santé publique (VIMA), Université de Versailles Saint-Quentin-en-Yvelines (UVSQ)-Institut National de la Santé et de la Recherche Médicale (INSERM), Cohortes épidémiologiques en population (CONSTANCES), Université de Versailles Saint-Quentin-en-Yvelines (UVSQ)-Institut National de la Santé et de la Recherche Médicale (INSERM)-Université Paris-Saclay-Université de Paris (UP), University of Dusseldorf, University of Alberta, University of Occupational and Environmental Health [Kitakyushu] (UEOH), Kitasato University, Fudan University [Shanghai], Catholic University of Leuven - Katholieke Universiteit Leuven (KU Leuven), Keimyung University, University of California, City University of New York [New York] (CUNY), Kanagawa University, International Labour Organization (ILO), University of Ottawa [Ottawa], University of South Australia [Adelaide], Organisation Mondiale de la Santé / World Health Organization Office (OMS / WHO), All authors are salaried staff members of their respective institutions. The publication was prepared with financial support to the World Health Organization from its cooperative agreement with the Centres for Disease Control and Prevention National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health of the United States of America (Grant 1E11 OH0010676-02, Grant 6NE11OH010461-02-01, and Grant 5NE11OH010461-03-00), the German Federal Ministry of Health (BMG Germany) under the BMG-WHO Collaboration Programme 2020-2023 (WHO specified award ref. 70672), and the Spanish Agency for International Cooperation (AECID) (WHO specified award ref. 71208)., Jonchère, Laurent, University of Copenhagen = Københavns Universitet (UCPH), Université de Versailles Saint-Quentin-en-Yvelines (UVSQ)-Institut National de la Santé et de la Recherche Médicale (INSERM)-Université Paris-Saclay-Université Paris Cité (UPCité), Université d'Angers (UA)-Université de Rennes (UR)-École des Hautes Études en Santé Publique [EHESP] (EHESP)-Institut National de la Santé et de la Recherche Médicale (INSERM)-Structure Fédérative de Recherche en Biologie et Santé de Rennes ( Biosit : Biologie - Santé - Innovation Technologique ), Rugulies, Reiner, Sørensen, Kathrine, Di Tecco, Cristina, Bonafede, Michela, Zadow, Amy, and Pega, Frank

Subjects
PROTOCOL, [SDE] Environmental Sciences, STRESS, EVIDENCE-BASED MEDICINE, [SDV]Life Sciences [q-bio], law.invention, Cohort Studies, 0302 clinical medicine, Randomized controlled trial, systematic review, Cost of Illness, law, GE1-350, 030212 general & internal medicine, Stroke, General Environmental Science, global burden of disease, Depression, ASSOCIATION, 030210 environmental & occupational health, 3. Good health, [SDV] Life Sciences [q-bio], Global burden of disease, Occupational Diseases, Meta-analysis, depression, [SDE]Environmental Sciences, EMPLOYEES, Female, HEALTH, FAMILY CONFLICT, Life Sciences & Biomedicine, Cohort study, medicine.medical_specialty, Adolescent, Environmental Sciences & Ecology, World Health Organization, Work related, 03 medical and health sciences, RISK-FACTOR, long working hours, Internal medicine, Occupational Exposure, MENTAL-DISORDERS, medicine, Humans, Risk factor, Science & Technology, Occupational health, MAJOR DEPRESSION, Odds ratio, medicine.disease, meta-analysis, Environmental sciences, Long working hours, Relative risk, occupational health, Systematic review, Environmental Sciences
Abstract

BackgroundThe World Health Organization (WHO) and the International Labour Organization (ILO) are developing joint estimates of the work-related burden of disease and injury (WHO/ILO Joint Estimates), with contributions from a large network of individual experts. Evidence from mechanistic data and prior studies suggests that exposure to long working hours may cause stroke. In this paper, we present a systematic review and meta-analysis of parameters for estimating the number of deaths and disability-adjusted life years from stroke that are attributable to exposure to long working hours, for the development of the WHO/ILO Joint Estimates.ObjectivesWe aimed to systematically review and meta-analyse estimates of the effect of exposure to long working hours (three categories: 41–48, 49–54 and ≥55 h/week), compared with exposure to standard working hours (35–40 h/week), on stroke (three outcomes: prevalence, incidence, and mortality).Data sourcesA protocol was developed and published, applying the Navigation Guide to systematic reviews as an organizing framework where feasible. We searched electronic databases for potentially relevant records from published and unpublished studies, including Ovid MEDLINE, PubMed, EMBASE, Scopus, Web of Science, CISDOC, PsycINFO, and WHO ICTRP. We also searched grey literature databases, Internet search engines, and organizational websites; hand-searched reference lists of previous systematic reviews; and consulted additional experts.Study eligibility and criteriaWe included working-age (≥15 years) individuals in the formal and informal economy in any WHO and/or ILO Member State but excluded children (aged < 15 years) and unpaid domestic workers. We included randomized controlled trials, cohort studies, case-control studies and other non-randomized intervention studies with an estimate of the effect of exposure to long working hours (41–48, 49–54 and ≥55 h/week), compared with exposure to standard working hours (35–40 h/week), on stroke (prevalence, incidence or mortality).Study appraisal and synthesis methodsAt least two review authors independently screened titles and abstracts against the eligibility criteria at a first review stage and full texts of potentially eligible records at a second stage, followed by extraction of data from qualifying studies. Missing data were requested from principal study authors. We combined relative risks using random-effects meta-analysis. Two or more review authors assessed the risk of bias, quality of evidence and strength of evidence, using the Navigation Guide and GRADE tools and approaches adapted to this project.ResultsTwenty-two studies (20 cohort studies, 2 case-control studies) met the inclusion criteria, comprising a total of 839,680 participants (364,616 females) in eight countries from three WHO regions (Americas, Europe, and Western Pacific). The exposure was measured using self-reports in all studies, and the outcome was assessed with administrative health records (13 studies), self-reported physician diagnosis (7 studies), direct diagnosis by a physician (1 study) or during a medical interview (1 study). The outcome was defined as an incident non-fatal stroke event in nine studies (7 cohort studies, 2 case-control studies), incident fatal stroke event in one cohort study and incident non-fatal or fatal (“mixed”) event in 12 studies (all cohort studies). Cohort studies were judged to have a relatively low risk of bias; therefore, we prioritized evidence from these studies, but synthesised evidence from case-control studies as supporting evidence. For the bodies of evidence for both outcomes with any eligible studies (i.e. stroke incidence and mortality), we did not have serious concerns for risk of bias (at least for the cohort studies).Eligible studies were found on the effects of long working hours on stroke incidence and mortality, but not prevalence. Compared with working 35–40 h/week, we were uncertain about the effect on incidence of stroke due to working 41–48 h/week (relative risk (RR) 1.04, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.94–1.14, 18 studies, 277,202 participants, I2 0%, low quality of evidence). There may have been an increased risk for acquiring stroke when working 49–54 h/week compared with 35–40 h/week (RR 1.13, 95% CI 1.00–1.28, 17 studies, 275,181participants, I2 0%, p 0.04, moderate quality of evidence). Compared with working 35–40 h/week, working ≥55 h/week may have led to a moderate, clinically meaningful increase in the risk of acquiring stroke, when followed up between one year and 20 years (RR 1.35, 95% CI 1.13 to 1.61, 7 studies, 162,644 participants, I2 3%, moderate quality of evidence).Compared with working 35–40 h/week, we were very uncertain about the effect on dying (mortality) of stroke due to working 41–48 h/week (RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.91–1.12, 12 studies, 265,937 participants, I2 0%, low quality of evidence), 49–54 h/week (RR 1.13, 95% CI 0.99–1.29, 11 studies, 256,129 participants, I2 0%, low quality of evidence) and 55 h/week (RR 1.08, 95% CI 0.89–1.31, 10 studies, 664,647 participants, I2 20%, low quality of evidence).Subgroup analyses found no evidence for differences by WHO region, age, sex, socioeconomic status and type of stroke. Sensitivity analyses found no differences by outcome definition (exclusively non-fatal or fatal versus “mixed”) except for the comparison working ≥55 h/week versus 35–40 h/week for stroke incidence (p for subgroup differences: 0.05), risk of bias (“high”/“probably high” ratings in any domain versus “low”/“probably low” in all domains), effect estimate measures (risk versus hazard versus odds ratios) and comparator (exact versus approximate definition).ConclusionsWe judged the existing bodies of evidence for human evidence as “inadequate evidence for harmfulness” for all exposure categories for stroke prevalence and mortality and for exposure to 41–48 h/week for stroke incidence. Evidence on exposure to 48–54 h/week and ≥55 h/week was judged as “limited evidence for harmfulness” and “sufficient evidence for harmfulness” for stroke incidence, respectively. Producing estimates for the burden of stroke attributable to exposures to working 48–54 and ≥55 h/week appears evidence-based, and the pooled effect estimates presented in this systematic review could be used as input data for the WHO/ILO Joint Estimates.

Published
2020

106. Population health and status of epidemiology: WHO European Region I

Author

Martina Ondrušová, Mati Rahu, Péter Csépe, Tatiana I Andreeva, Vladimir Bencko, Vasiliy Victorovich Vlassov, Joseph Ribak, Anita Gębska-Kuczerowska, Frank Pega, Aleksei Baburin, Pinar Ay, Rahu, Mati, Vlassov, Vasiliy V., Pega, Frank, Andreeva, Tatiana, Ay, Pinar, Baburin, Aleksei, Bencko, Vladimir, Csepe, Peter, Gebska-Kuczerowska, Anita, Ondrusova, Martina, and Ribak, Joseph

Subjects
Male, COUNTRIES, Economic growth, medicine.medical_specialty, FORMER SOVIET-UNION, Health Status, epidemiological training, Population, Population health, European region, World Health Organization, disease burden, Politics, SOCIOECONOMIC INEQUALITIES, Risk Factors, HAZARDOUS ALCOHOL-DRINKING, Epidemiology, medicine, Asia, Western, Health Status Indicators, Humans, LIFE EXPECTANCY, Europe, Eastern, Healthcare Disparities, education, EDUCATIONAL INEQUALITIES, RUSSIA, Disease burden, epidemiological research, education.field_of_study, Research, INFANT-MORTALITY, General Medicine, Middle Aged, EASTERN-EUROPE, Eastern european, Epidemiologic Studies, Geography, Socioeconomic Factors, Bibliometrics, Population Surveillance, PUBLIC-HEALTH, Chronic Disease, Life expectancy, Asia, Central, Professional association, epidemiology
Abstract

Background This article of the International Epidemiological Association commissioned paper series stocktakes the population health and status of epidemiology in 21 of the 53 countries of the WHO European Region. By United Nations geographical classification, these countries belong to Eastern Europe, Western Asia and South-Central Asia. Methods Published data were used to describe population health indicators and risk factors. Epidemiological training and research was assessed based on author knowledge, information searches and E-mail survey of experts. Bibliometric analyses determined epidemiological publication outputs. Results Between-country differences in life expectancy, amount and profile of disease burden and prevalence of risk factors are marked. Epidemiological training is affected by ongoing structural reforms of educational systems. Training is advanced in Israel and several Eastern European countries. Epidemiological research is mainly university-based in most countries, but predominantly conducted by governmental research institutes in several countries of the former Soviet Union. Funding is generally external and limited, partially due to competition from and prioritization of biomedical research. Multiple relevant professional societies exist, especially in Poland, the Czech Republic and Hungary. Few of the region's 39 epidemiological academic journals have international currency. The number of epidemiological publications per population is highest for Israel and lowest for South-Central Asian countries. Conclusions Epidemiological capacity will continue to be heterogeneous across the region and depend more on countries' individual historical, social, political and economic conditions and contexts than their epidemiologists' successive efforts. National and international research funding, and within- and between-country collaborations should be enhanced, especially for South-Central Asian countries.

Published
2013

107. The 2024 report of the Lancet Countdown on health and climate change: facing record-breaking threats from delayed action.

Author

Romanello M, Walawender M, Hsu SC, Moskeland A, Palmeiro-Silva Y, Scamman D, Ali Z, Ameli N, Angelova D, Ayeb-Karlsson S, Basart S, Beagley J, Beggs PJ, Blanco-Villafuerte L, Cai W, Callaghan M, Campbell-Lendrum D, Chambers JD, Chicmana-Zapata V, Chu L, Cross TJ, van Daalen KR, Dalin C, Dasandi N, Dasgupta S, Davies M, Dubrow R, Eckelman MJ, Ford JD, Freyberg C, Gasparyan O, Gordon-Strachan G, Grubb M, Gunther SH, Hamilton I, Hang Y, Hänninen R, Hartinger S, He K, Heidecke J, Hess JJ, Jamart L, Jankin S, Jatkar H, Jay O, Kelman I, Kennard H, Kiesewetter G, Kinney P, Kniveton D, Kouznetsov R, Lampard P, Lee JKW, Lemke B, Li B, Liu Y, Liu Z, Llabrés-Brustenga A, Lott M, Lowe R, Martinez-Urtaza J, Maslin M, McAllister L, McMichael C, Mi Z, Milner J, Minor K, Minx J, Mohajeri N, Momen NC, Moradi-Lakeh M, Morrisey K, Munzert S, Murray KA, Obradovich N, O'Hare MB, Oliveira C, Oreszczyn T, Otto M, Owfi F, Pearman OL, Pega F, Perishing AJ, Pinho-Gomes AC, Ponmattam J, Rabbaniha M, Rickman J, Robinson E, Rocklöv J, Rojas-Rueda D, Salas RN, Semenza JC, Sherman JD, Shumake-Guillemot J, Singh P, Sjödin H, Slater J, Sofiev M, Sorensen C, Springmann M, Stalhandske Z, Stowell JD, Tabatabaei M, Taylor J, Tong D, Tonne C, Treskova M, Trinanes JA, Uppstu A, Wagner F, Warnecke L, Whitcombe H, Xian P, Zavaleta-Cortijo C, Zhang C, Zhang R, Zhang S, Zhang Y, Zhu Q, Gong P, Montgomery H, and Costello A

Abstract

Competing Interests: Declaration of interests Thirteen of the authors (ZA, S-CH, LJ, AM, CO, MO, JP, YP-S, DS, LB-V, MRo, MW, and HW) were compensated for their time while drafting and developing the Lancet Countdown's report. LC was supported by a grant from the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute of the National Institutes of Health. CD received funding from the European Research Council (FLORA, grant number 101039402). RD was supported by a grant from the High Tide Foundation and subcontracts on funds from the Wellcome Trust and US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. GG-S received funding from the UK National Institute for Health and Care Research for the Global Health Research Group on Diet and Activity (NIHR133205, with sub-award contract number G109900-SJ1/171 with the University of Cambridge). SHG's research was supported by the National Research Foundation, Prime Minister's Office, Singapore, under its Campus for Research Excellence and Technological Enterprise programme (grant number NRF2019-THE001-0006). JJH was supported by two grants from the Wellcome Trust and a grant from the US National Science Foundation. RH, RK, and MSo acknowledge funding from Academy of Finland projects HEATCOST (grant 334798) and VFSP-WASE (grant 359421), together with EU Horizon projects FirEUrisk (grant number 101003890) and EXHAUSTION (grant number 820655). OJ was supported by grants from the National Health Medical Research Council (Heat and Health: building resilience to extreme heat in a warming world, GNT1147789); Wellcome Trust (Heat stress in ready-made garment factories in Bangladesh and the Heat inform pregnant study); and Resilience New South Wales (A new heat stress scale for general public); holds a patent for the Environmental Measurement Unit; and has received consulting fees from the National Institutes of Health. HM received funding from the Oak Foundation to support work on climate change through RealZero, is partly funded by the National Institute for Health Research's Comprehensive Biomedical Research Centre at University College London Hospitals, and received fees from Bayer Pharmaceuticals and Chiesl for sustainability consulting. JM-U was supported by grants PID2021-127107NB-I00 from Ministerio de Ciencia e Innovación (Spain) and 2021 SGR 00526 from Generalitat de Catalunya (Spain). JRo's work is supported by the Alexander von Humboldt foundation. RL, JRo, and MRo were supported by Horizon Europe through the IDAlert project (101057554) and UK Research and Innovation (reference number 10056533). RNS reports a contract with Massachusetts General Hospital. MSo and AU were supported by the Finnish Foreign Ministry project IBA-ILMA (grant number VN/13798/2023). MSp was supported by funding from the Wellcome Trust, through Our Planet Our Health (Livestock, Environment and People, award number 205212/Z/16/Z) and a Wellcome Career Development Award (Towards the full cost of diets, award number 225318/Z/22/Z). JDSh was supported by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research, the Commonwealth Fund, and the Emergency Care Research Institute and has received consulting fees from the Institute for Healthcare Research. JT was supported by the Research Council of Finland (T-Winning Spaces 2035 project), the UK Medical Research Council (PICNIC project), and the Finnish Ministry of the Environment (SEASON project). JB is employed as a consultant by the Global Climate and Health Alliance. ML received consulting fees from YarCom for advisory services and was supported by general use gifts awarded to the Center on Global Energy Policy at Columbia University, USA. JMil acknowledges consulting fees from the C40 Climate Leadership Group. CZ-C received a consultancy from the University of Alberta and was supported by contracts with her university (Universidad Peruana Cayetano Heredia), University of Leeds, WHO, and the Wellcome Trust; she was also supported by a letter of agreement between her university and the Food and Agriculture Organization's Indigenous Peoples Unit. MD was supported by the Wellcome Trust via the Complex Urban Systems for Sustainability and Health project (grants 205207/Z/16/Z and 209387/Z/17/Z). IH, S-CH, MRo, CT, and RL were supported by the Horizon Europe CATALYSE project (CATALYSE grant number 101057131, HORIZON-HLTH-2021-ENVHLTH-02, with UK Research and Innovation reference number 10041512). The work of YH, YL, DT, and QZ was supported by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration's Earth Action programme (grant number 80NSSC21K0507). AJP was supported by the Bezos Earth Fund and the Schmidt Family Foundation. ER and SD were supported by a Process-based models for climate impact attribution across sectors (PROCLIAS) grant (COST Action PROCLIAS grant CA19139), funded by European Cooperation in Science and Technology. All other authors declare no competing interests.

Published
2024
Full Text
View/download PDF

108. Exercise programmes to prevent falls among older adults: modelling health gain, cost-utility and equity impacts.

Author

Deverall E, Kvizhinadze G, Pega F, Blakely T, and Wilson N

Subjects
Accidental Falls economics, Aged, Aged, 80 and over, Cost-Benefit Analysis, Female, Humans, Male, Markov Chains, New Zealand epidemiology, Program Evaluation, Quality-Adjusted Life Years, Accidental Falls prevention & control, Exercise Therapy economics, Health Promotion economics
Abstract

Background: Some falls prevention interventions for the older population appear cost-effective, but there is uncertainty about others. Therefore, we aimed to model three types of exercise programme each running for 25 years among 65+ year olds: (i) a peer-led group-based one; (ii) a home-based one and (iii) a commercial one., Methods: An established Markov model for studying falls prevention in New Zealand (NZ) was adapted to estimate incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) in cost per quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) gained. Detailed NZ experimental, epidemiological and cost data were used for the base year 2011. A health system perspective was taken and a discount rate of 3% applied. Intervention effectiveness estimates came from a Cochrane Review., Results: The intervention generating the greatest health gain and costing the least was the home-based exercise programme intervention. Lifetime health gains were estimated at 47 100 QALYs (95%uncertainty interval (UI) 22 300 to 74 400). Cost-effectiveness was high (ICER: US$4640 per QALY gained; (95% UI US$996 to 10 500)), and probably more so than a home safety assessment and modification intervention using the same basic model (ICER: US$6060). The peer-led group-based exercise programme was estimated to generate 42 000 QALYs with an ICER of US$9490. The commercially provided group programme was more expensive and less cost-effective (ICER: US$34 500). Further analyses by sex, age group and ethnicity (Indigenous Māori and non-Māori) for the peer-led group-intervention showed similar health gains and cost-effectiveness., Conclusions: Implementing any of these three types of exercise programme for falls prevention in older people could produce considerable health gain, but with the home-based version being likely to be the most cost-effective., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Article author(s) (or their employer(s) unless otherwise stated in the text of the article) 2019. All rights reserved. No commercial use is permitted unless otherwise expressly granted.)

Published
2019
Full Text
View/download PDF

Catalog

Books, media, physical & digital resources
See catalog results