|
Citation
|
Hinrichs T, Bücker B, Klaaßen-Mielke R, Brach M, Wilm S, Platen P, Mai A. J. Am. Geriatr. Soc. 2016; 64(11): 2270-2279. |
|
Affiliation
|
Department of Medical Informatics, Biometry and Epidemiology, University of Bochum, Bochum, Germany. |
|
Abstract
|
OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effects a home-based exercise program delivered to ill and mobility-limited elderly individuals on physical function, physical activity, quality of life, fall-related self-efficacy, and exercise self-efficacy.
DESIGN: Randomized controlled trial (ISRCTN Registry, Reg.-No. ISRCTN17727272). SETTING: Fifteen general practitioner (GP) practices and participants' homes. PARTICIPANTS: Chronically ill and mobility-limited individuals aged 70 and older (N = 209). INTERVENTIONS: An exercise therapist delivered the experimental intervention-a 12-week multidimensional home-based exercise program integrating behavioral strategies-in individual counseling sessions at the GPs' practices and over the telephone. The control intervention focused on promoting light-intensity activities of daily living. Interventions took place between February 2012 and March 2013. MEASUREMENTS: The primary outcome was functional lower body strength (chair-rise test). Secondary outcomes were physical function (battery of motor tests), physical activity (step count), health-related quality of life (Medical Outcomes Study 8-item Short-Form Survey), fall-related (Falls Efficacy Scale-International Version), and exercise self-efficacy (Selbstwirksamkeit zur sportlichen Aktivitaet (SSA) scale). Postintervention differences between the groups were tested using analysis of covariance (intention to treat; adjusted for baseline value and GP practice; significance level P ≤.05).
RESULTS: Participants had a mean age ± standard deviation of 80 ± 5, 74% were female, 87% had three or more chronic diseases, and 54% used a walking aid. The difference (intention to treat; experimental minus control) between adjusted postintervention chair-rise times was -0.1 (95% confidence interval = -1.8-1.7). Differences for all secondary outcomes were also nonsignificant.
CONCLUSION: The program was ineffective in the target population. Possibilities for improving the concept will have to be evaluated.
© 2016, Copyright the Authors Journal compilation © 2016, The American Geriatrics Society.
Language: en |