Nerz Corinna, Kramer-Gmeiner Franziska, Jansen Carl-Philipp, Labudek Sarah, Klenk Jochen, Becker Clemens, Schwenk Michael
Department for Clinical Gerontology, Robert-Bosch-Hospital, Stuttgart, Germany.
Network Aging Research (NAR), Heidelberg University, Heidelberg, Germany.
Clin Interv Aging. 2022 Apr 27;17:637-652. doi: 10.2147/CIA.S359150. eCollection 2022.
Lifestyle-integrated Functional Exercise (LiFE) is an effective, individually delivered fall prevention program but comes with substantial resource requirements; hence, a group-format was developed (gLiFE). This study 1) evaluates the program content of two different LiFE formats (group vs individual) and 2) examines the relationship between predictors of training response (dose) and improvements in balance, strength, and physical activity (PA) (response).
The analysis included n = 252 (gLiFE = 126, LiFE = 126) community-dwelling older adults (78.6±5.2 years). LiFE was administered in seven sessions either in a group (gLiFE: 8-12 participants) or individually at home (LiFE). Questionnaire-based, descriptive content evaluation (frequency distributions) included reported frequency of practice (days/week, number of activities), activity preferences, safety, intensity, integrability of activities, and acceptance after 6 months of LiFE practice. Predictors (ie, dose [reported frequency and intensity], safety, and integrability of activities) for improvements in balance, strength, and PA were analyzed using radar charts.
In both formats, 11.2 activities were practiced on average. Strength activities were more frequently selected than balance. Content evaluation showed some marginal advantages for the LiFE participants for selected aspects. The effects on balance, strength, and PA were nearly similar in both groups. Participants who performed balance activities more frequently (≥4 days/week) scored better in the balance and PA domain. Those who performed strength activities more frequently (≥4 days/week) performed better in all three outcomes. Higher perceived safety was associated with better performance. Those who reported activities as "not physically exhausting" performed better in all three outcomes. Those who found activities easily integrable into daily routines scored higher in the balance and strength domain.
Overall, both program formats are comparable with respect to content evaluation and effects. Participants need to perceive the activities as safe, not exhausting, and should practice ≥4 days/week to generate a high benefit from the intervention.
ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03462654. Registered on 12 March 2018.
生活方式整合功能锻炼(LiFE)是一项有效的、针对个体的预防跌倒计划,但需要大量资源;因此,开发了一种团体形式(gLiFE)。本研究1)评估两种不同LiFE形式(团体与个体)的计划内容,2)研究训练反应(剂量)的预测因素与平衡、力量和身体活动(PA)改善(反应)之间的关系。
分析纳入了n = 252名(gLiFE组 = 126名,LiFE组 = 126名)社区居住的老年人(78.6±5.2岁)。LiFE通过七次课程进行,课程形式分为团体(gLiFE:8 - 12名参与者)或在家中单独进行(LiFE)。基于问卷的描述性内容评估(频率分布)包括报告的练习频率(每周天数、活动数量)、活动偏好、安全性、强度、活动的可整合性以及LiFE练习6个月后的接受度。使用雷达图分析平衡、力量和PA改善的预测因素(即剂量[报告的频率和强度]、安全性和活动的可整合性)。
在两种形式中,平均进行了11.2项活动。力量活动的选择频率高于平衡活动。内容评估显示,在某些选定方面,LiFE参与者有一些边际优势。两组对平衡、力量和PA的影响几乎相似。更频繁进行平衡活动(≥4天/周)的参与者在平衡和PA领域得分更高。更频繁进行力量活动(≥4天/周)的参与者在所有三项结果中表现更好。更高的感知安全性与更好的表现相关。将活动报告为“不累身体”的参与者在所有三项结果中表现更好。认为活动易于融入日常生活的参与者在平衡和力量领域得分更高。
总体而言,两种计划形式在内容评估和效果方面具有可比性。参与者需要将活动视为安全、不累身体的,并且应每周练习≥4天,以便从干预中获得高收益。
ClinicalTrials.gov,NCT03462654。于2018年3月12日注册。