Cost-effectiveness of a physical activity and behaviour maintenance programme on functional mobility decline in older adults: an economic evaluation of the REACT (Retirement in Action) trial.

BACKGROUND: Mobility limitations in older populations have a substantial impact on health outcomes, quality of life, and social care costs. The Retirement in Action (REACT) randomised controlled trial assessed a 12-month community-based group physical activity and behaviour maintenance intervention to help prevent decline in physical functioning in older adults at increased risk of mobility limitation. We aimed to do an economic evaluation of the REACT trial to investigate whether the intervention is cost-effective. METHODS: In this health economic evaluation, we did cost-effectiveness and cost-utility analyses of the REACT programme versus standard care on the basis of resource use, primary outcome, and health-related quality-of-life data measured in the REACT trial. We also developed a decision analytic Markov model that forecasts the mobility of recipients beyond the 24-month follow-up of the trial and translated this into future costs and potential benefit to health-related quality of life using the National Health Service and Personal Social Services perspective. Participants completed questionnaire booklets at baseline, and at 6, 12, and 24 months after randomisation, which included a resource use questionnaire and the EQ-5D-5L and 36-item short-form survey (SF-36) health-related quality-of-life instruments. The cost of delivering the intervention was estimated by identifying key resources, such as REACT session leader time, time of an individual to coordinate the programme, and venue hire. EQ-5D-5L and SF-36 responses were converted to preference-based utility values, which were used to estimate quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) over the 24-month trial follow-up using the area-under-the-curve method. We used generalised linear models to examine the effect of the REACT programme on costs and QALYs and adjust for baseline covariates. Costs and QALYs beyond 12 months were discounted at 3·5% per year. This is a pre-planned analysis of the REACT trial; the trial itself is registered with ISRCTN (ISRCTN45627165). FINDINGS: The 12-month REACT programme was estimated to cost £622 per recipient to deliver. The most substantial cost components are the REACT session leader time (£309 per participant), venue hire (£109), and the REACT coordinator time (£80). The base-case analysis of the trial-based economic evaluation showed that reductions in health and social care usage due to the REACT programme could offset the REACT delivery costs (£3943 in the intervention group vs £4043 in the control group; difference: -£103 [95% CI -£695 to £489]) with a health benefit of 0·04 QALYs (0·009-0·071; 1·354 QALYs in the intervention group vs 1·314 QALYs in the control group) within the 24-month timeframe of the trial. INTERPRETATION: The REACT programme could be considered a cost-effective approach for improving the health-related quality of life of older adults at risk of mobility limitations. FUNDING: National Institute for Health Research Public Health Research Programme.

The Tribulations of Trials: Lessons Learnt Recruiting 777 Older Adults Into REtirement in ACTion (REACT), a Trial of a Community, Group-Based Active Aging Intervention Targeting Mobility Disability.

BACKGROUND: Challenges of recruitment to randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and successful strategies to overcome them should be clearly reported to improve recruitment into future trials. REtirement in ACTion (REACT) is a United Kingdom-based multicenter RCT recruiting older adults at high risk of mobility disability to a 12-month group-based exercise and behavior maintenance program or to a minimal Healthy Aging control intervention. METHODS: The recruitment target was 768 adults, aged 65 years and older scoring 4-9 on the Short Physical Performance Battery (SPPB). Recruitment methods include the following: (a) invitations mailed by general practitioners (GPs); (b) invitations distributed via third-sector organizations; and (c) public relations (PR) campaign. Yields, efficiency, and costs were calculated. RESULTS: The study recruited 777 (33.9% men) community-dwelling, older adults (mean age 77.55 years (SD 6.79), mean SPPB score 7.37 (SD 1.56)), 95.11% white (n = 739) and broadly representative of UK quintiles of deprivation. Over a 20-month recruitment period, 25,559 invitations were issued. Eighty-eight percent of the participants were recruited via GP invitations, 5.4% via the PR campaign, 3% via word-of-mouth, and 2.5% via third-sector organizations. Mean recruitment cost per participant was £78.47, with an extra £26.54 per recruit paid to GPs to cover research costs. CONCLUSIONS: REACT successfully recruited to target. Response rates were lower than initially predicted and recruitment timescales required adjustment. Written invitations from GPs were the most efficient method for recruiting older adults at risk of mobility disability. Targeted efforts could achieve more ethnically diverse cohorts. All trials should be required to provide recruitment data to enable evidence-based planning of future trials.

A community-based physical activity intervention to prevent mobility-related disability for retired older people (REtirement in ACTion (REACT)): study protocol for a randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: The REtirement in ACTion (REACT) study is a multi-centre, pragmatic, two-arm, parallel-group randomised controlled trial (RCT) with an internal pilot phase. It aims to test the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of a community, group-based physical activity intervention for reducing, or reversing, the progression of functional limitations in older people who are at high risk of mobility-related disability. METHODS/DESIGN: A sample of 768 sedentary, community-dwelling, older people aged 65 years and over with functional limitations, but who are still ambulatory (scores between 4 and 9 out of 12 in the Short Physical Performance Battery test (SPPB)) will be randomised to receive either the REACT intervention, delivered over a period of 12 months by trained facilitators, or a minimal control intervention. The REACT study incorporates comprehensive process and economic evaluation and a nested sub-study which will test the hypothesis that the REACT intervention will slow the rate of brain atrophy and of decline in cognitive function assessed using magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). Outcome data will be collected at baseline, 6, 12 and 24 months for the main study, with MRI sub-study data collected at baseline, 6 and 12 months. The primary outcome analysis (SPPB score at 24 months) will be undertaken blinded to group allocation. Primary comparative analyses will be on an intention-to-treat (ITT) basis with due emphasis placed on confidence intervals. DISCUSSION: REACT represents the first large-scale, pragmatic, community-based trial in the UK to target the non-disabled but high-risk segment of the older population with an intervention to reduce mobility-related disability. A programme that can successfully engage this population in sufficient activity to improve strength, aerobic capacity, coordination and balance would have a major impact on sustaining health and independence. REACT is also the first study of its kind to conduct a full economic and comprehensive process evaluation alongside the RCT. If effective and cost-effective, the REACT intervention has strong potential to be implemented widely in the UK and elsewhere. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN, ID: ISRCTN45627165 . Retrospectively registered on 13 June 2016. Trial sponsor: University of Bath. Protocol Version 1.5.

Similarities and Differences in the Determinants of Trips Outdoors Performed by UK Urban- and Rural-Living Older Adults.

The frequency of trips outdoors is a strong indicator of older adults' physical activity levels. This qualitative study compared and contrasted determinants of trips outdoors between rural- (n = 13) and urban-living (n = 15) people aged 65 and older living in England. Interview transcripts were analyzed through directed and summative content analysis employing the Ecological Model framework. Some personal-level determinants (age-related barriers) and environment-level factors (car dependence, bus services) were shared across samples. The main differences were seen in how a community-based social network instigated trips outdoors for rural participants while family ties mostly led to trips outdoors for urban-living participants. Urban participants used and valued recreational facilities, but rural participants did not report them as important in determining trips outdoors. Strategies to improve public transport and minimize age-related barriers may translate from urban to rural contexts. However, social and/or physical environment interventions could be more effective if they were rural-grounded, not urban-translated.