Search

Background: The Exercise interveNtion outdoor proJect in the cOmmunitY (ENJOY) Seniors Exercise Park program uses specialized outdoor equipment and a physical activity program to engage older people in physical activity, with multiple health benefits. We determined the cost-effectiveness of the ENJOY program. Methods: The economic evaluation compared health care utilization costs 6 months prior to and 6 months post ENJOY program participation. Incremental cost-utility analysis for the primary aim (quality of life) and incremental cost-effectiveness analysis for the secondary aim (falls) were used. Analyses took a societal perspective inclusive of Australian government-funded health care and pharmaceuticals in addition to hospitalizations, community-based nursing and allied health, and community services. Productivity costs were also calculated. Results: Fifty participants (average age 72.8 y [SD 7.4] and 78.0% [n = 39/50] women) were included. Participation in the ENJOY program reduced health care costs in the 6 months following the program: preintervention, $9764.49 (SD $26,033.35); postintervention, $5179.30 (SD $3826.64); observed postintervention reduction −$4.585.20 (95% confidence interval, −$12,113.99 to $2943.59; P = .227) without compromising quality of life (mean difference [MD] 0.011; 95% confidence interval, −0.034 to 0.056; P = .631) or increasing the likelihood of a fall (−0.5; 95% confidence interval, 0.00 to −0.50; P = .160). The ENJOY intervention is likely cost-effective. Conclusions: Planning for shared community spaces should consider the benefits of a Seniors Exercise Park as part of the built environment.

Context:The forward-step-down (FSD) test may be used to identify underlying pathologies related to lower-extremity injuries. However, research on its interrater reliability is limited.Objective:To assess the interrater reliability of the FSD test with a broad cohort of clinicians and to compare the level of agreement with an expert panel.Design:Single-measure, interrater reliability.Setting:Annual conference of the Israeli Physical Therapy Society.Participants:15 healthy subjects who performed the FSD test and 142 physical therapists (PTs) who evaluated performance.Methods:Each subject performed the FSD while being videoed. Six videos were selected by an expert panel for analysis. After viewing the videos, FSD performance was rated by 142 PTs, as well as by the expert panel, using a 3-level scale.Main Outcome Measures:Interrater reliability determined by intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) and percentage of agreement with the expert panel.Results:Fair to good reliability and acceptable agreement were found for the entire sample of raters (ICC –.61, agreement 74%). The percentage of agreement was greater in the subgroup of raters who were familiar with the FSD than in those who were not (78.08% vs 69.32%, respectively, P = .004). Years of work experience did not affect the percentage of agreement (P = .141).Conclusions:Fair to good interrater reliably of the FSD test was demonstrated by a broad cohort of PTs. The findings support the clinical utility of the FSD test as an assessment tool for quality of movement.