Ashworth N L, Chad K E, Harrison E L, Reeder B A, Marshall S C
Physical Medicine & Rehabilitation, University of Alberta, Glenrose Rehabilitation Hospital, 10230-111 Avenue, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada, T5G 0B7.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2005 Jan 25;2005(1):CD004017. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD004017.pub2.
Physical inactivity is a leading cause of preventable death and morbidity in developed countries. In addition physical activity can potentially be an effective treatment for various medical conditions (e.g. cardiovascular disease, osteoarthritis). Many types of physical activity programs exist ranging from simple home exercise programs to intense highly supervised hospital (center) based programs.
To assess the effectiveness of 'home based' versus 'center based' physical activity programs on the health of older adults.
The reviewers searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (1991-present), MEDLINE (1966-Sept 2002), EMBASE (1988 to Sept 2002), CINAHL (1982-Sept 2002), Health Star (1975-Sept 2002), Dissertation Abstracts (1980 to Sept 2002), Sport Discus (1975-Sept 2002) and Science Citation Index (1975-Sept 2002), reference lists of relevant articles and contacted principal authors where possible.
Randomised or quasi-randomised controlled trials of different physical activity interventions in older adults (50 years or older) comparing a 'home based' to a 'center based' exercise program. Study participants had to have either a recognised cardiovascular risk factor, or existing cardiovascular disease, or chronic obstructive airways disease (COPD) or osteoarthritis. Cardiac and post-operative programs within one year of the event were excluded.
Three reviewers selected and appraised the identified studies independently. Data from studies that then met the inclusion/exclusion criteria were extracted by two additional reviewers.
Six trials including 224 participants who received a 'home based' exercise program and 148 who received a 'center based' exercise program were included in this review. Five studies were of medium quality and one poor. A meta-analysis was not undertaken given the heterogeneity of these studies. CARDIOVASCULAR. The largest trial (accounting for approximately 60% of the participants) looked at sedentary older adults. Three trials looked at patients with peripheral vascular disease (intermittent claudication). In patients with peripheral vascular disease center based programs were superior to home at improving distance walked and time to claudication pain at up to 6 months. However the risk of a training effect may be high. There are no longer term studies in this population. Notably home based programs appeared to have a significantly higher adherence rate than center based programs. However this was based primarily on the one study (with the highest quality rating of the studies found) of sedentary older adults. This showed an adherence rate of 68% in the home based program at two year follow-up compared with a 36% adherence in the center based group. There was essentially no difference in terms of treadmill performance or cardiovascular risk factors between groups. CHRONIC OBSTRUCTIVE PULMONARY DISEASE (COPD). Two trials looked at older adults with COPD. In patients with COPD the evidence is conflicting. One study showed similar changes in various physiological measures at 3 months that persisted in the home based group up to 18 months but not in the center based group. The other study showed significantly better improvements in physiological measures in the center based group after 8 weeks but again the possibility of a training effect is high. OSTEOARTHRITIS. No studies were found. None of the studies dealt with measures of cost, or health service utilization.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: In the short-term, center based programs are superior to home based programs in patients with PVD. There is a high possibility of a training effect however as the center based groups were trained primarily on treadmills (and the home based were not) and the outcome measures were treadmill based. There is conflicting evidence which is better in patients with COPD. Home based programs appear to be superior to center based programs in terms of the adherence to exercise (especially in the long-term).
缺乏身体活动是发达国家可预防死亡和发病的主要原因。此外,体育活动有可能成为治疗各种疾病(如心血管疾病、骨关节炎)的有效方法。存在多种类型的体育活动项目,从简单的家庭锻炼计划到在医院(中心)进行的高强度、有严格监督的项目。
评估“家庭式”与“中心式”体育活动项目对老年人健康的效果。
综述作者检索了Cochrane对照试验中心注册库(CENTRAL)(1991年至今)、MEDLINE(1966年至2002年9月)、EMBASE(1988年至2002年9月)、CINAHL(1982年至2002年9月)、Health Star(1975年至2002年9月)、学位论文文摘(1980年至2002年9月)、体育文摘(1975年至2002年9月)和科学引文索引(1975年至2002年9月),相关文章的参考文献列表,并在可能的情况下联系主要作者。
对老年人(50岁及以上)进行不同体育活动干预的随机或半随机对照试验,比较“家庭式”与“中心式”锻炼计划。研究参与者必须有公认的心血管危险因素、现有的心血管疾病、慢性阻塞性气道疾病(COPD)或骨关节炎。事件发生后一年内的心脏和术后项目被排除。
三位综述作者独立选择并评估所识别的研究。另外两位综述作者提取符合纳入/排除标准的研究数据。
本综述纳入了6项试验,其中224名参与者接受了“家庭式”锻炼计划,148名参与者接受了“中心式”锻炼计划。5项研究质量中等,1项质量较差。鉴于这些研究的异质性,未进行荟萃分析。心血管疾病方面:最大的试验(约占参与者的60%)针对久坐不动的老年人。3项试验针对外周血管疾病(间歇性跛行)患者。在外周血管疾病患者中,中心式项目在改善步行距离和至跛行疼痛时间方面,在长达6个月时优于家庭式项目。然而,训练效果的风险可能较高。该人群没有长期研究。值得注意的是,家庭式项目的依从率似乎明显高于中心式项目。然而,这主要基于一项(所发现研究中质量评级最高)针对久坐不动老年人的研究。该研究显示,在两年随访时,家庭式项目的依从率为68%,而中心式组为36%。两组在跑步机性能或心血管危险因素方面基本没有差异。慢性阻塞性肺疾病(COPD)方面:两项试验针对患有COPD的老年人。在COPD患者中,证据相互矛盾。一项研究显示,3个月时各种生理指标的变化相似,家庭式组在长达18个月时仍持续存在,但中心式组没有。另一项研究显示,8周后中心式组的生理指标改善明显更好,但同样训练效果的可能性较高。骨关节炎方面:未找到相关研究。没有研究涉及成本或卫生服务利用的衡量指标。
短期内,中心式项目在外周血管疾病患者中优于家庭式项目。然而,由于中心式组主要在跑步机上训练(家庭式组没有),且结果测量基于跑步机,所以训练效果的可能性较高。在COPD患者中,证据相互矛盾。在运动依从性方面(尤其是长期),家庭式项目似乎优于中心式项目。