The journals of gerontology. Series A, Biological sciences and medical sciences · 2019
A Case for Promoting Movement Medicine: Preventing Disability in the LIFE Randomized Controlled Trial.
СтатьяМногоцентровое исследованиеРандомизированное исследованиеПоддержка NIH: внешняя программаНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Fanning Jason, Rejeski W Jack, Chen Shyh-Huei, Nicklas Barbara J, Walkup Michael P, Axtell Robert S, Fielding Roger A, Glynn Nancy W, King Abby C, Manini Todd M, McDermott Mary M, Newman Anne B, Pahor Marco, Tudor-Locke Catrine, Miller Michael E, LIFE Study Investigators
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: The movement profile of older adults with compromised function is unknown, as is the relationship between these profiles and the development of major mobility disability (MMD)-a critical clinical outcome. We first describe the dimensions of movement in older adults with compromised function and then examine whether these dimensions predict the onset of MMD.
METHODS: Older adults at risk for MMD (N = 1,022, mean age = 78.7 years) were randomized to receive a structured physical activity intervention or health education control. We assessed MMD in 6-month intervals (average follow-up of 2.2 years until incident MMD), with activity assessed at baseline, 6-, 12- and 24-month follow-up via accelerometry.
RESULTS: A principal components analysis of 11 accelerometer-derived metrics yielded three components representing lifestyle movement (LM), extended bouts of moderate-to-vigorous physical activity (MVPA), and stationary body posture. LM accounted for the greatest proportion of variance in movement (53%). Within health education, both baseline LM (HR = 0.74; 95% CI 0.62 to 0.88) and moderate-to-vigorous physical activity (HR = 0.69; 95% CI 0.54 to 0.87) were associated with MMD, whereas only LM was associated with MMD within physical activity (HR = 0.74; 95% CI 0.61 to 0.89). There were similar nonlinear relationships present for LM in both physical activity and health education (p < .04), whereby risk for MMD was lower among individuals with higher levels of LM.
CONCLUSIONS: Both LM and moderate-to-vigorous physical activity should be central in treatment regimens for older adults at risk for MMD.
TRIAL REGISTRATION: clinicaltrials.gov Identifier NCT01072500.
METHODS: Older adults at risk for MMD (N = 1,022, mean age = 78.7 years) were randomized to receive a structured physical activity intervention or health education control. We assessed MMD in 6-month intervals (average follow-up of 2.2 years until incident MMD), with activity assessed at baseline, 6-, 12- and 24-month follow-up via accelerometry.
RESULTS: A principal components analysis of 11 accelerometer-derived metrics yielded three components representing lifestyle movement (LM), extended bouts of moderate-to-vigorous physical activity (MVPA), and stationary body posture. LM accounted for the greatest proportion of variance in movement (53%). Within health education, both baseline LM (HR = 0.74; 95% CI 0.62 to 0.88) and moderate-to-vigorous physical activity (HR = 0.69; 95% CI 0.54 to 0.87) were associated with MMD, whereas only LM was associated with MMD within physical activity (HR = 0.74; 95% CI 0.61 to 0.89). There were similar nonlinear relationships present for LM in both physical activity and health education (p < .04), whereby risk for MMD was lower among individuals with higher levels of LM.
CONCLUSIONS: Both LM and moderate-to-vigorous physical activity should be central in treatment regimens for older adults at risk for MMD.
TRIAL REGISTRATION: clinicaltrials.gov Identifier NCT01072500.