EFFECTIVENESS OF A VIDEO-BASED TELEREHABILITATION FOR FALL PREVENTION IN OLDER ADULTS
Author(s)
Chizoba Favour Igwe, BSc, MSc, PhD1, Mo Egwu, BSc, MSc, PhD2, Clara T. Fatoye, BSc, MA3, Tadesse Gebrye, MPH, MSc3, Francis Fatoye, BSc, MBA, MSc, PhD3, Zalmai Hakimi, PharmD, PhD4, Chidozie E. Mbada, BSc, MSc, PhD3;
1University of Lagos, Legos, United Kingdom, 2Obafemi Awolowo University, Ile-Ife,, Nigeria, 3Manchester Metropolitan University, Manchester, United Kingdom, 4Sobi, Amsterdam, Netherlands
1University of Lagos, Legos, United Kingdom, 2Obafemi Awolowo University, Ile-Ife,, Nigeria, 3Manchester Metropolitan University, Manchester, United Kingdom, 4Sobi, Amsterdam, Netherlands
OBJECTIVES: Telerehabilitation offers a feasible approach to fall prevention in older adults, yet evidence remains limited on its wider applications. This study examined the effectiveness of a video-based exercise programme (VBEP) versus falls risk avoidance education pamphlet (FRAEP) on fall characteristics, functional and psychosocial outcomes.
METHODS: Seventy retirees aged 65+ participated in this quasi-experimental study, randomly assigned to VBEP or FRAEP (wait-list control). Outcomes were measured at baseline, week 4, and week 8 using FES-I (fear of falling), GDS (depression), HRQoL (physical/mental health), PASE (activity), and WHO-DAS (disability). Physical performance was assessed via the 4-Stage Balance Test, 30-second Chair Stand, Timed Up and Go, and Berg Balance Scale. Data were analysed using repeated-measures and Friedman’s ANOVA to examine time and group differences, with significance at p < 0.05.
RESULTS: VBEP showed no changes in TUG, 30-SCST, or static balance, but significant improvements in physical activity and QoL (general health, physical health, role-emotional; p < 0.001), with significant time effects for Berg Balance (p = 0.023) and GDS (p < 0.001) and no change in Falls Efficacy. FRAEP showed no changes in TUG or chair-stand performance, but significant improvements in 4-stage balance (p = 0.019), physical activity (PASE; p < 0.001), and QoL domains (p < 0.001), with Friedman’s ANOVA confirming gains in Berg Balance and GDS only. Between-group comparisons indicated superior balance for VBEP at week 4 and higher Berg Balance scores, while FRAEP demonstrated better General Health at weeks 4 and 8; at week 8, VBEP showed higher physical activity and Role-Emotional scores.
CONCLUSIONS: Overall, both programmes were beneficial but differed in impact, with VBEP showing greater benefits in balance, physical activity, and emotional outcomes, and FRAEP demonstrating stronger improvements in general health, highlighting the complementary value of targeted intervention selection.
METHODS: Seventy retirees aged 65+ participated in this quasi-experimental study, randomly assigned to VBEP or FRAEP (wait-list control). Outcomes were measured at baseline, week 4, and week 8 using FES-I (fear of falling), GDS (depression), HRQoL (physical/mental health), PASE (activity), and WHO-DAS (disability). Physical performance was assessed via the 4-Stage Balance Test, 30-second Chair Stand, Timed Up and Go, and Berg Balance Scale. Data were analysed using repeated-measures and Friedman’s ANOVA to examine time and group differences, with significance at p < 0.05.
RESULTS: VBEP showed no changes in TUG, 30-SCST, or static balance, but significant improvements in physical activity and QoL (general health, physical health, role-emotional; p < 0.001), with significant time effects for Berg Balance (p = 0.023) and GDS (p < 0.001) and no change in Falls Efficacy. FRAEP showed no changes in TUG or chair-stand performance, but significant improvements in 4-stage balance (p = 0.019), physical activity (PASE; p < 0.001), and QoL domains (p < 0.001), with Friedman’s ANOVA confirming gains in Berg Balance and GDS only. Between-group comparisons indicated superior balance for VBEP at week 4 and higher Berg Balance scores, while FRAEP demonstrated better General Health at weeks 4 and 8; at week 8, VBEP showed higher physical activity and Role-Emotional scores.
CONCLUSIONS: Overall, both programmes were beneficial but differed in impact, with VBEP showing greater benefits in balance, physical activity, and emotional outcomes, and FRAEP demonstrating stronger improvements in general health, highlighting the complementary value of targeted intervention selection.
Conference/Value in Health Info
2026-05, ISPOR 2026, Philadelphia, PA, USA
Value in Health, Volume 29, Issue S6
Code
CO176
Topic
Clinical Outcomes
Topic Subcategory
Clinical Outcomes Assessment, Comparative Effectiveness or Efficacy
Disease
SDC: Geriatrics, SDC: Injury & Trauma, SDC: Musculoskeletal Disorders (Arthritis, Bone Disorders, Osteoporosis, Other Musculoskeletal)