Skip to main content

Table 5 Quality of life scores of the participants with and without a fall during follow-up

From: Cost-utility of medication withdrawal in older fallers: results from the improving medication prescribing to reduce risk of FALLs (IMPROveFALL) trial

Fall

Group

N

Baseline

Follow-up

p-values*

Change

p-values**

EQ-5D utility score

Control

87

0.71 ± 0.25

0.64 ± 0.28

0.01

−0.07 ± 0.29

0.13

 

Intervention

101

0.68 ± 0.29

0.67 ± 0.28

0.70

−0.01 ± 0.27

 

SF-12 PCS score

Control

88

44.0 ± 10.4

39.3 ± 13.1

<0.01

−4.7 ± 9.8

0.72

 

Intervention

107

44.8 ± 9.5

40.7 ± 11.2

<0.01

−4.2 ± 10.2

 

SF-12 MCS score

Control

88

53.6 ± 9.1

51.6 ± 10.5

0.14

−1.9 ± 10.8

0.56

 

Intervention

107

52.4 ± 10.6

51.7 ± 9.2

0.25

−1.0 ± 11.1

 

No fall

Group

N

Baseline

Follow-up

p-values*

Change

p-values**

EQ-5D utility score

Control

169

0.81 ± 0.19

0.80 ± 0.22

0.27

−0.02 ± 0.16

0.08

 

Intervention

180

0.77 ± 0.24

0.80 ± 0.23

0.44

0.02 ± 0.16

 

SF-12 PCS score

Control

172

47.3 ± 9.6

43.9 ± 10.4

<0.01

−3.5 ± 7.8

0.01

 

Intervention

178

46.1 ± 9.6

44.5 ± 10.2

<0.01

−1.5 ± 7.1

 

SF-12 MCS score

Control

172

53.1 ± 9.0

53.0 ± 8.5

0.76

−0.1 ± 9.2

0.46

 

Intervention

178

53.9 ± 8.8

53.0 ± 8.9

0.40

−0.9 ± 8.8

 
  1. C control, I intervention. Data are given as mean values ± standard deviation
  2. *Wilcoxon Signed Rank test
  3. **Two-way ANOVA
Back to article page

BMC Geriatrics

ISSN: 1471-2318

Contact us