Skip to main content

Table 1 Intervention eligibility conditions by pathway and scenario

From: Economic model of community-based falls prevention: seeking methodological solutions in evaluating the efficiency and equity of UK guideline recommendations

Pathway

Usual care (UC)

Recommended care (RC)

Reactive

HAM for hospitalised fallers only (around 28% of MA fallers)

Multifactorial intervention for all MA fallers

Proactive

Multifactorial intervention for high falls risk individuals screened at routine GP contact, a who are: (i) cognitively intact; (ii) not receiving the reactive intervention that year; (iii) have not previously received the proactive intervention

Multifactorial intervention for high falls riskb individuals screened at routine GP contact: (i) regardless of cognitive status; (ii) not receiving the reactive intervention that year; and (iii) regardless of proactive intervention historyc

Self-referred

Self-financed exercise intervention for 0.1% of persons in the most privileged SES quartile not receiving reactive/proactive intervention that year

Publicly funded exercise intervention for persons who are not receiving the reactive/proactive intervention that year

  1. Abbreviation: ELSA English Longitudinal Study of Ageing, HAM Home assessment and modification, MA faller Faller requiring medical attention, SES Socioeconomic status
  2. aAccording to ELSA: around 81% of older persons aged 60 + access routine GP contact each year; under usual care, only around 31% of persons receive falls risk screening at GP contact; around 34% of screened individuals receive the intervention. See Table B26 in Additional file 2: Appendix B for greater detail on access conditions
  3. bAssessed using NICE CG161 criteria: high falls risk if had recurrent falls in past year and/or abnormal gait/balance [28]
  4. cTo keep client flow to that compatible with 7 falls clinics, those with 3 previous re-receipts are excluded