Dataset Information

Motor Control-based Group Exercise: Can It be Delivered as Effectively by Lay Leaders?

ABSTRACT: Purpose:On the Move (OTM), a motor control-based group exercise program for community-dwelling older adults, has produced greater gains in mobility than a standard group exercise program when delivered by research leaders. The purposes of this study were:1) to examine the effectiveness of OTM versus a standard program when delivered by lay leaders and 2) to compare the outcomes of OTM when delivered by research versus lay leaders. Methods:Community-dwelling, medically stable older adults who could walk household distances participated. OTM consisted of warm-up, timing and coordination, strengthening, and stretching exercises. The seated standard program consisted of warm-up, aerobic, strengthening and stretching exercises. The primary outcome(s) of function and disability was the Late Life Function and Disability Instrument (LLFDI), and for walking ability were the Six Minute Walk Test and gait speed. Results:126 participants (mean age = 80.7±7.8 years, gait speed = 0.91 m/s) were randomized to OTM (n=49) or standard (n=77) programs. When taught by lay leaders, there were no significant between-intervention group differences in any of the outcomes (p>0.10). Comparing OTM outcomes between leaders, there was a statistical but not clinically meaningful difference in LLFDI disability (1.87±0.89, p=0.04) when taught by research versus lay leader, and moderate differences (p=0.06) in LLFDI overall function (1.89±1.02) and gait speed (0.05±0.03). Qualitative interview responses suggest that instructor-related concerns may have impacted program outcomes. Conclusion:When delivered by lay leaders OTM was not more effective than a standard program for improving function, disability, and mobility in older adults. Health promotion programs designed to improve mobility in community-dwelling older adults and based on a motor control theoretical background, may be best taught by rehabilitation professionals.

SUBMITTER: Wert DM

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6133265 | biostudies-literature | 2018 Feb

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Motor Control-based Group Exercise: Can It be Delivered as Effectively by Lay Leaders?

Wert David M DM Perera Subashan S Nutini Jean F JF Ricci Edmund M EM Coffman Leslie L Turnquist Rachael R VanSwearingen Jessie J Brach Jennifer J

Translational journal of the American College of Sports Medicine 20180201 3

<h4>Purpose</h4>On the Move (OTM), a motor control-based group exercise program for community-dwelling older adults, has produced greater gains in mobility than a standard group exercise program when delivered by research leaders. The purposes of this study were:1) to examine the effectiveness of OTM versus a standard program when delivered by lay leaders and 2) to compare the outcomes of OTM when delivered by research versus lay leaders.<h4>Methods</h4>Community-dwelling, medically stable older ...[more]

PMID: 30221198

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundAccess to rehabilitation to support cancer survivors to exercise is poor. Group exercise-based rehabilitation may be delivered remotely, but no trials have currently evaluated their efficacy.ObjectiveWe aimed to evaluate the efficacy of a group exercise-based cancer rehabilitation program delivered via telehealth compared to usual care for improving the quality of life of cancer survivors.MethodsA parallel, assessor-blinded, pragmatic randomized controlled trial with embedded cost and qualitative analysis will be completed. In total, 116 cancer survivors will be recruited from a metropolitan health network in Melbourne, Victoria, Australia. The experimental group will attend an 8-week, twice-weekly, 60-minute exercise group session supervised via videoconferencing supplemented by a web-based home exercise program and information portal. The comparison group will receive usual care including standardized exercise advice and written information. Assessments will be completed at weeks 0 (baseline), 9 (post intervention), and 26 (follow-up). The primary outcome will be health-related quality of life measured using the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire at week 9. Secondary measures include walking capacity (6-minute walk test), physical activity (activPAL accelerometer), self-efficacy (Health Action Process Approach Questionnaire), and adverse events. Health service data including hospital length of stay, hospital readmissions, and emergency department presentations will be recorded. Semistructured interviews will be completed within an interpretive description framework to explore the patient experience. The primary outcome will be analyzed using linear mixed effects models. A cost-effectiveness analysis will also be performed.ResultsThe trial commenced in April 2022. As of June 2022, we enrolled 14 participants.ConclusionsThis trial will inform the future implementation of cancer rehabilitation by providing important data about efficacy, safety, cost, and patient experience.Trial registrationAustralian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry ACTRN12621001417875; https://tinyurl.com/yc5crwtr.International registered report identifier (irrid)PRR1-10.2196/38553.

Project description:BackgroundThe Lifestyle-Integrated Functional Exercise (LiFE) program is effective in improving strength, balance, and physical activity (PA) while simultaneously reducing falls in older people by incorporating exercise activities in recurring daily tasks. However, implementing the original LiFE program includes substantial resource requirements. Therefore, as part of the LiFE-is-LiFE project, a group format (gLiFE) of the LiFE program has been developed, which will be tested regarding its noninferiority to the individually delivered LiFE in terms of PA-adjusted fall incidence and overall cost-effectiveness.MethodsIn a multi-centre, single-blinded noninferiority trial, an envisaged sample of N = 300 participants (> 70 years; faller and/or confirmed falls risk; community-dwelling) will be randomized in either LiFE or gLiFE. Both groups will undergo the same strength and balance activities as well as PA promotion activities and habitualization strategies as described in the LiFE programme, however, based on different approaches of delivery: During the 6-month intervention phase, LiFE participants will receive seven home visits and two telephone calls; in gLiFE, the program will be delivered in seven group sessions and also two telephone calls. Main outcomes are a) fall incidence per PA and b) incremental cost-effectiveness ratio comparing costs and quality-adjusted life years between the two interventions. Secondary outcomes include PA behaviour, motor performance, health status, psychosocial status, program evaluation, and adherence. Measurements will be conducted at baseline, 6-month and 12-month follow-up; evaluation of intervention sessions and assessment of psychosocial variables related to execution and habitualization of LiFE activities will be made during the intervention period as well.DiscussionCompared to LiFE, we expect gLiFE to (a) reduce falls per PA by a similar rate; (b) be more cost-effective; (c) comparably enhance physical performance in terms of strength and balance as well as PA. By investigating the economic and societal benefit, this study will be of high practical relevance as noninferiority of gLiFE would facilitate large-scale implementation due to lower resource usage. This would result in better reach and increased accessibility, which is important for subjects with a history of falls and/or being at risk of falls.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov NCT03462654 . Registered on March 12, 2018.

Project description:BackgroundMotor control exercise (MCE) is used by healthcare professionals worldwide as a common treatment for low back pain (LBP). However, the effectiveness of this intervention for acute LBP remains unclear.ObjectivesTo evaluate the effectiveness of MCE for patients with acute non-specific LBP.Search methodsWe searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), four other databases and two trial registers from their inception to April 2015, tracked citations and searched reference lists. We placed no limitations on language nor on publication status.Selection criteriaWe included only randomised controlled trials (RCTs) examining the effectiveness of MCE for patients with acute non-specific LBP. We considered trials comparing MCE versus no treatment, versus another type of treatment or added as a supplement to other interventions. Primary outcomes were pain intensity and disability. Secondary outcomes were function, quality of life and recurrence.Data collection and analysisTwo review authors screened for potentially eligible studies, assessed risk of bias and extracted data. A third independent review author resolved disagreements. We examined MCE in the following comparisons: (1) MCE versus spinal manipulative therapy; (2) MCE versus other exercises; and (3) MCE as a supplement to medical management. We used the GRADE (Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development and Evaluation) approach to assess the quality of evidence. For missing or unclear information, we contacted study authors. We considered the following follow-up intervals: short term (less than three months after randomisation); intermediate term (at least three months but within 12 months after randomisation); and long term (12 months or longer after randomisation).Main resultsWe included three trials in this review (n = 197 participants). Study sample sizes ranged from 33 to 123 participants. Low-quality evidence indicates no clinically important differences between MCE and spinal manipulative therapy for pain at short term and for disability at short term and long term. Low-quality evidence also suggests no clinically important differences between MCE and other forms of exercise for pain at short or intermediate term and for disability at intermediate term or long term follow-up. Moderate-quality evidence shows no clinically important differences between MCE and other forms of exercise for disability at short term follow-up. Finally, very low-quality evidence indicates that addition of MCE to medical management does not provide clinically important improvement for pain or disability at short term follow-up. For recurrence at one year, very low-quality evidence suggests that MCE and medical management decrease the risk of recurrence by 64% compared with medical management alone.Authors' conclusionsWe identified only three small trials that also evaluated different comparisons; therefore, no firm conclusions can be drawn on the effectiveness of MCE for acute LBP. Evidence of very low to moderate quality indicates that MCE showed no benefit over spinal manipulative therapy, other forms of exercise or medical treatment in decreasing pain and disability among patients with acute and subacute low back pain. Whether MCE can prevent recurrences of LBP remains uncertain.

Project description:Introduction/purposeVirtually supervised, group-based exercise presents an innovative way to expand the reach of exercise-oncology programs and help cancer survivors increase physical activity (PA) and connect with other participants. This study examined the feasibility, acceptability, and preliminary effects of a group-based PA program delivered exclusively using videoconferencing software.MethodsThis study used a single-group pre-post design. The 8-wk program consisted of aerobic and resistance exercise sessions once per week and three PA behavior change discussion sessions in groups of four to six. Feasibility was determined by enrollment, retention, safety, and adherence. Postprogram surveys evaluated acceptability using a Likert scale and open-ended responses. Changes in PA (Godin Leisure-Time Exercise Questionnaire), quality of life (QOL; Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy- General), and upper and lower body muscular endurance (bicep curl and sit-to-stand test) were also evaluated.ResultsEnrollment was feasible (n = 61 of 65 who expressed interest in the program), and retention (86.9%) and adherence (88% for exercise, 91% for discussion) were high; no adverse events were reported. Participants (mean age, 59.9 ± 10.1 yr; 96.2% female; 64.2% ovarian cancer, 28.3% breast cancer, 7.5% other cancer) reported they enjoyed the program (median, 7 of 7), and videoconferencing software was easy to use and had good video and audio quality (median, 5 of 5). From preprogram to postprogram, participants increased their weekly minutes of aerobic (mean (SD) change, 82.4 (144.2)) and resistance (mean (SD) change, 31.9 (42.7)) PA; sit-to-stand (mean (SD) change, 1.4 (3.9)) and bicep curl (mean (SD) change, 5.3 (6.8)) repetitions; and emotional (mean (SD) change, 0.82 (2.3) points), functional (mean (SD) change, 1.2 (3.6) points), and total QOL (mean (SD) change, 3 (7.9) points; all P < 0.05).ConclusionsA group-based PA program delivered using videoconference technology is feasible and acceptable for cancer survivors, and may increase PA and improve physical fitness and some aspects of QOL. A larger, controlled intervention is needed to determine efficacy, as well as pragmatic studies to directly compare this approach with conventional strategies (i.e., face-to-face programs).

Project description:BackgroundA recently updated Cochrane systematic review on the effects of lay or community health workers (LHWs) in primary and community health care concluded that LHW interventions could lead to promising benefits in the promotion of childhood vaccination uptake. However, understanding of the costs and cost-effectiveness of involving LHWs in vaccination programmes remains poor. This paper reviews the costs and cost-effectiveness of vaccination programme interventions involving LHWs.MethodsArticles were retrieved if the title, keywords or abstract included terms related to 'lay health workers', 'vaccination' and 'economics'. Reference lists of studies assessed for inclusion were also searched and attempts were made to contact authors of all studies included in the Cochrane review. Studies were included after assessing eligibility of the full-text article. The included studies were then reviewed against a set of background and technical characteristics.ResultsOf the 2616 records identified, only three studies fully met the inclusion criteria, while an additional 11 were retained as they included some cost data. Methodologically, the studies were strong but did not adequately address affordability and sustainability and were also highly heterogeneous in terms of settings and LHW outcomes, limiting their comparability. There were insufficient data to allow any conclusions to be drawn regarding the cost-effectiveness of LHW interventions to promote vaccination uptake. Studies focused largely on health outcomes and did illustrate to some extent how the institutional characteristics of communities, such as governance and sources of financial support, influence sustainability.ConclusionThe included studies suggest that conventional economic evaluations, particularly cost-effectiveness analyses, generally focus too narrowly on health outcomes, especially in the context of vaccination promotion and delivery at the primary health care level by LHWs. Further studies on the costs and cost-effectiveness of vaccination programmes involving LHWs should be conducted, and these studies should adopt a broader and more holistic approach.

Dataset Information

Motor Control-based Group Exercise: Can It be Delivered as Effectively by Lay Leaders?

Publications

Motor Control-based Group Exercise: Can It be Delivered as Effectively by Lay Leaders?

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets