Journal of the American Geriatrics Society · 2016
Home-Based Exercise Supported by General Practitioner Practices: Ineffective in a Sample of Chronically Ill, Mobility-Limited Older Adults (the HOMEfit Randomized Controlled Trial).
СтатьяРандомизированное исследованиеНазвание 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.
Hinrichs Timo, Bücker Bettina, Klaaßen-Mielke Renate, Brach Michael, Wilm Stefan, Platen Petra, Mai Anna
Аннотация
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.
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.