![comparing groups nvivo 12 comparing groups nvivo 12](http://s3-ap-southeast-1.amazonaws.com/subscriber.images/jee/2016/02/12084555/0-16.png)
In both formats, the majority of participants reported positive outcomes and successful implementation of new movement habits. In gLiFE, some difficulties with the implementation of activities were reported. Participants reflected on advantages of both formats: the social aspects of learning the program in a peer group (gLiFE), and benefits of learning the program at home (LiFE). In both formats, participants ( N = 30, 22 women, n gLiFE = 15, n LiFE = 15, mean age 78.8 ± 6.6 years) were positive about content, structure, and support received by trainers. Qualitative content analysis using the method of inductive category formation by Mayring was applied for data analysis. Four structured focus group discussions (90–100 min duration one per format and study site) on content, structure, and subjective effects of gLiFE and LiFE were conducted. Programs were delivered in seven group sessions (gLiFE) or seven individual home visits (LiFE) within a multi-center, randomized non-inferiority trial. The aim of this qualitative focus group study is to compare participants’ experiences regarding acceptability of gLiFE vs LiFE. A recently developed group-based LiFE (gLiFE) could enhance large-scale implementability and decrease resource intensity. The Lifestyle-integrated Functional Exercise (LiFE) program is an effective but resource-intensive fall prevention program delivered one-to-one in participants’ homes.