Trial reportPloS one2025
The cost-effectiveness of the Dutch In Balance fall prevention intervention compared to exercise recommendations among community-dwelling older adults with an increased risk of falls: A randomized controlled trial.
Trial report in PloS one, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Trial
- Injury prevention in fatigue-prone nursing environments: a comprehensive review of strategies centered on work design, human factors engineering, and safety culture.Frontiers in public health · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundFalls among older adults are a growing public health issue, and are associated with injuries and increased societal costs. Therefore, implementation of effective fall prevention interventions is important. Given limited healthcare resources, evaluating the cost-effectiveness of these interventions is essential. Therefore, we aimed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of the In Balance fall prevention intervention for community-dwelling older adults with an increased risk of falls compared to general physical activity recommendations (control) from a societal perspective.
methodsAn economic evaluation was conducted alongside a twelve month, single-blind, multicenter randomized controlled trial. Participants were 264 non- and pre-frail community-dwelling adults aged 65 years or older with an increased fall risk. We assessed costs from a societal perspective and effects included the number of falls, fall-related injuries, and Quality-Adjusted Life Years (QALYs) based on the EuroQol Five-level questionnaire (EQ-5D-5L) and the Adult Social Care Outcomes Toolkit (ASCOT). Missing data were handled using Multiple Imputation by Chained Equations (MICE). Incremental costs and effects were estimated using Seemingly Unrelated Regressions and used to estimate Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs).
resultsOn average, In Balance was less expensive and more effective than control, but differences were not statistically significant. ICERs indicated dominance of the intervention for prevented falls (€-14,329 per prevented fall), prevented fall-related injuries (€-14,569 per prevented injury), and QALYs based on both the EQ-5D-5L (€-168,265 per QALY gained) and ASCOT (€-135,797 per QALY gained). The probability of cost-effectiveness of In Balance compared to control was 98% at a willingness to pay (WTP) of €0 per unit of effect gained.
conclusionsBased on this study, we conclude that In Balance may be considered cost-effective compared to control. Future research should explore whether In Balance as part of a comprehensive fall prevention strategy is cost-effective.
trial registrationResearch with human participants: NL9248 (registered February 13 2021, URL: https://www.onderzoekmetmensen.nl/nl/trial/26195).
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.