Centre for Physical Activity in Ageing, Department of Geriatric and RehabilitationMedicine, Hampstead Rehabilitation Centre, Royal Adelaide Hospital, Adelaide, Australia
Br J Sports Med. 2011 Sep;45(12):978-86. doi: 10.1136/bjsm.2009.063966. Epub 2010 Mar 9.
OBJECTIVE: To determine whether high-intensity, progressive gym-based exercise performed once a week is as effective as twice weekly for maintaining both subjective and objective outcomes in older adults post discharge from a metropolitan day rehabilitation centre (DRC). DESIGN: Randomised controlled trial. SETTING: Community-based exercise centre for older adults, located in Metropolitan Adelaide, South Australia. PARTICIPANTS: 21 men and 85 women who completed the DRC programme were assessed and randomly allocated to a study group. INTERVENTION: The two experimental interventions were gym-based exercise programmes (including resistance, aerobic, flexibility and balance training) varying only in frequency of delivery: either once or twice a week, directly compared with usual care (control). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Lower limb strength (one-repetition maximum), balance (Berg Balance Scale), physical function (gait speed, 30-s chair stand test, timed up and go test (primary outcome) and 6-min walk test), self-reported pain (Glasgow Pain Questionnaire), activities of daily living (Barthel Index and Older Americans Resources and Services Multidimensional Functional Assessment Questionnaire), perceived benefits of and barriers to exercise (Exercise Benefits Barriers Scale), quality of life (Assessment of Quality of Life Questionnaire) and exercise frequency preference. RESULTS: Most of the outcomes (69%, 11/16) were maintained over the intervention period with no significant group effects detected between the two intervention groups or compared to the control group. Physical activity levels recorded in the control group showed a significant proportion of participants were actively exercising once weekly. A per-protocol analysis was undertaken to take this potential contamination effect into account. This showed that the control group participants, who did not exercise, did not maintain outcomes to the extent of the intervention groups, with significant group-by-time effects detected between the two intervention groups and the control group. Most of all participants (66%, 62/94) nominated once a week as their preferred exercise frequency. CONCLUSIONS: The overall finding of no significant differences between the two intervention groups for all outcomes measured gives support to the effectiveness of once-a-week exercise in maintaining outcomes at 3 months post rehabilitation. Further research is warranted given the once-a-week exercise intervention should cost less, had higher compliance and was nominated as the preferred exercise frequency by most of the participants.
目的:确定每周进行一次高强度、渐进式的健身房运动是否与每周两次一样,能有效维持从大都市日间康复中心(DRC)出院后的老年人的主观和客观结果。 设计:随机对照试验。 地点:位于南澳大利亚阿德莱德大都市区的老年人社区基础锻炼中心。 参与者:完成 DRC 项目的 21 名男性和 85 名女性接受评估并随机分配到研究组。 干预措施:两个实验干预措施是基于健身房的运动方案(包括阻力、有氧运动、灵活性和平衡训练),仅在交付频率上有所不同:每周一次或两次,直接与常规护理(对照组)进行比较。 主要观察指标:下肢力量(一次重复最大)、平衡(伯格平衡量表)、身体功能(步态速度、30 秒坐立测试、计时起立行走测试(主要结果)和 6 分钟步行测试)、自我报告的疼痛(格拉斯哥疼痛问卷)、日常生活活动(巴氏指数和美国老年人资源和服务多维功能评估问卷)、对运动的益处和障碍的感知(运动益处障碍量表)、生活质量(生活质量评估问卷)和运动频率偏好。 结果:大多数结果(69%,11/16)在干预期间得到维持,两个干预组之间或与对照组之间未检测到显著的组间效应。对照组记录的身体活动水平显示,有相当比例的参与者每周主动进行一次锻炼。进行了一项意向性分析,以考虑这种潜在的混杂效应。这表明,没有进行锻炼的对照组参与者,其结果没有像干预组那样得到维持,两个干预组与对照组之间检测到显著的组间时间效应。大多数参与者(66%,62/94)将每周一次指定为他们的首选运动频率。 结论:对于所有测量的结果,两个干预组之间没有显著差异的总体发现,支持每周一次的运动在康复后 3 个月维持结果的有效性。鉴于每周一次的运动干预费用更低、依从性更高,并且大多数参与者都将其指定为首选的运动频率,因此需要进一步研究。
Mult Scler. 2016-10
Age Ageing. 2009-1
Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2008-4
Nurs Health Sci. 2024-12
Gerontologist. 2020-1-24
J Cachexia Sarcopenia Muscle. 2016-6
Clin Interv Aging. 2014-9-16