Dataset Information

Group or individual lifestyle-integrated functional exercise (LiFE)? A qualitative analysis of acceptability.

ABSTRACT:

Background

The Lifestyle-integrated Functional Exercise (LiFE) program is an effective but resource-intensive fall prevention program delivered one-to-one in participants' homes. A recently developed group-based LiFE (gLiFE) could enhance large-scale implementability and decrease resource intensity. The aim of this qualitative focus group study is to compare participants' experiences regarding acceptability of gLiFE vs LiFE.

Methods

Programs were delivered in seven group sessions (gLiFE) or seven individual home visits (LiFE) within a multi-center, randomized non-inferiority trial. Four structured focus group discussions (90-100?min duration; one per format and study site) on content, structure, and subjective effects of gLiFE and LiFE were conducted. Qualitative content analysis using the method of inductive category formation by Mayring was applied for data analysis. Coding was managed using NVivo.

Results

In both formats, participants (N =?30, 22 women, n_gLiFE =?15, n_LiFE =?15, mean age 78.8?±?6.6?years) were positive about content, structure, and support received by trainers. Participants reflected on advantages of both formats: the social aspects of learning the program in a peer group (gLiFE), and benefits of learning the program at home (LiFE). In gLiFE, some difficulties with the implementation of activities were reported. In both formats, the majority of participants reported positive outcomes and successful implementation of new movement habits.

Conclusion

This is the first study to examine participants' views on and experiences with gLiFE and LiFE, revealing strengths and limitations of both formats that can be used for program refinement. Both formats were highly acceptable to participants, suggesting that gLiFE may have similar potential to be adopted by adults aged 70?years and older compared to LiFE.

Trial registration

ClinicalTrials.gov , NCT03462654 . Registered on March 12, 2018.

SUBMITTER: Reicherzer L

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7852079 | biostudies-literature | 2021 Feb

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Group or individual lifestyle-integrated functional exercise (LiFE)? A qualitative analysis of acceptability.

Reicherzer Leah L Kramer-Gmeiner Franziska F Labudek Sarah S Jansen Carl-Philipp CP Nerz Corinna C Nystrand Malin J MJ Becker Clemens C Clemson Lindy L Schwenk Michael M

BMC geriatrics 20210201 1

<h4>Background</h4>The Lifestyle-integrated Functional Exercise (LiFE) program is an effective but resource-intensive fall prevention program delivered one-to-one in participants' homes. A recently developed group-based LiFE (gLiFE) could enhance large-scale implementability and decrease resource intensity. The aim of this qualitative focus group study is to compare participants' experiences regarding acceptability of gLiFE vs LiFE.<h4>Methods</h4>Programs were delivered in seven group sessions ...[more]

PMID: 33522904

Similar Datasets

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:BackgroundThe 'Lifestyle-integrated Functional Exercise' (LiFE) program successfully reduced risk of falling via improvements in balance and strength, additionally increasing physical activity (PA) in older adults. Generally being delivered in an individual one-to-one format, downsides of LiFE are considerable human resources and costs which hamper large scale implementability. To address this, a group format (gLiFE) was developed and analyzed for its non-inferiority compared to LiFE in reducing activity-adjusted fall incidence and intervention costs. In addition, PA and further secondary outcomes were evaluated.MethodsOlder adults (70 + years) at risk of falling were included in this multi-center, single-blinded, randomized non-inferiority trial. Balance and strength activities and means to enhance PA were delivered in seven intervention sessions, either in a group (gLiFE) or individually at the participant's home (LiFE), followed by two "booster" phone calls. Negative binomial regression was used to analyze non-inferiority of gLiFE compared to LiFE at 6-month follow-up; interventions costs were compared descriptively; secondary outcomes were analyzed using generalized linear models. Analyses were carried out per protocol and intention-to-treat.ResultsThree hundred nine persons were randomized into gLiFE (n = 153) and LiFE (n = 156). Non-inferiority of the incidence rate ratio of gLiFE was inconclusive after 6 months according to per protocol (mean = 1.27; 95% CI: 0.80; 2.03) and intention-to-treat analysis (mean = 1.18; 95% CI: 0.75; 1.84). Intervention costs were lower for gLiFE compared to LiFE (-€121 under study conditions; -€212€ under "real world" assumption). Falls were reduced between baseline and follow-up in both groups (gLiFE: -37%; LiFE: -55%); increases in PA were significantly higher in gLiFE (+ 880 steps; 95% CI 252; 1,509). Differences in other secondary outcomes were insignificant.ConclusionsAlthough non-inferiority of gLiFE was inconclusive, gLiFE constitutes a less costly alternative to LiFE and it comes with a significantly larger enhancement of daily PA. The fact that no significant differences were found in any secondary outcome underlines that gLiFE addresses functional outcomes to a comparable degree as LiFE. Advantages of both formats should be evaluated in the light of individual needs and preferences before recommending either format.Trial registrationThe study was preregistered under clinicaltrials.gov (identifier: NCT03462654 ) on March 12th 2018.

Project description:BackgroundFall prevention is important for healthy ageing, but the economic impact of fall prevention are scarcely investigated. A recent cost-effectiveness analysis compared a group-delivered Lifestyle-integrated Functional Exercise Program (gLiFE) with an individually-delivered program (LiFE) in community-dwelling people (aged ≥ 70 years) at risk of falling. In addition, the current study aimed to analyze the budget impact of LiFE and gLiFE, compared with standard care in Germany.MethodsA Markov model was developed to reflect falls and associated care needs for community-dwelling persons over 5 years. The intervention effects of LiFE and gLiFE were shown to be equivalent in a non-inferiority trial, although the costs differed. Outpatient, inpatient, and intervention costs were assessed from a payer's perspective. The effect of parameter uncertainty was assessed in sensitivity analyses.ResultsThe budget impact due to intervention costs was €510 million for LiFE and €186 million for gLiFE. Over five years, health care expenditures were €35,008 million for those receiving standard care, €35,416 million for those receiving LiFE, and €35,091 million for persons receiving gLiFE. Thereby, LiFE and gLiFE could prevent 2700 deaths and 648,000 falls over 5 years. Parameter uncertainties in the risk of falling, uptake of an intervention offer, and in the intervention effects had a major influence; thus cost savings for LiFE and gLiFE compared with standard care could be achieved for individuals with a high risk of falling.ConclusionsThe results revealed that cost savings for LiFE and gLiFE compared with standard care could only be achieved for individuals at high risk of falling, with gLiFE being superior to LiFE. Future research should consider benefits and aspects of fall prevention beyond falls (e.g., physical activity, social aspects, and personal preferences of participants).Trial registrationThe study was preregistered under underclinicaltrials.gov (identifier: NCT03462654) on 12th March 2018; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03462654 .

Project description:BackgroundIndividual acupuncture (AP) is a safe and effective treatment for cancer-related pain and other symptoms in cancer survivors. However, access to individual AP is limited, and costs can be prohibitive. Group AP could be a more cost-effective alternative as it is less expensive and non-inferior to individual AP for pain relief. Despite growing evidence in favour of group AP, patient acceptability and experience of group AP in cancer patients is relatively unknown. This exploratory study sought to compare patient experiences and acceptability of group versus individual AP in cancer patients.MethodsSemi-structured, open-ended, in-depth interviews were conducted in a subset of 11 cancer patients enrolled in a randomized non-inferiority trial of group vs. individual AP for cancer pain. Participants for this study were recruited via purposive sampling, aiming for diversity in age, sex, education, employment, cancer types, and treatment arms. Data was analyzed using inductive thematic analysis.ResultsTwo major themes were identified: a) overall experience of AP treatment b) value of AP. Participants across both treatment arms acknowledged improvement in pain, quality of sleep, mood and fatigue. Participants in the group AP arm reported a significant increase in perceived social support, while participants in the individual arm valued privacy and one-on-one interaction with the acupuncturist. Although some participants in the group arm had privacy-related concerns before the commencement of the program, these concerns waned after a few AP sessions. Participants across both the treatment arms reported cordial clinician-patient relationship with the acupuncturist. Willingness to pursue AP treatment in the future was comparable across both the treatment arms and was limited by out-of-pocket costs.ConclusionPatient acceptability and experience of treatment in group AP was on par with individual AP. Group AP may further augment perceived social support among patients and privacy concerns, if any, subside after a few sessions.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov ( NCT03641222 ). Registered 10 July 2018 - Retrospectively registered.

Project description:BackgroundThe Lifestyle-integrated Functional Exercise (LiFE) programme is a fall prevention programme originally taught in a resource-intensive one-to-one format with limited feasibility for large-scale implementation. The aim of this paper is to present the conceptual framework and initial feasibility evaluation of a group-based LiFE (gLiFE) format developed for large-scale implementation.MethodsThe conceptual gLiFE framework (part I) is based on three pillars, LiFE Activities and Principles, Theory of Behaviour Change and Behaviour Change Techniques, and Instruction. The feasibility of gLiFE was tested (part II) within a multimodal approach including quantitative questionnaires measuring safety, acceptability (1 = best to 7 = insufficient), and adherence to the LiFE activities (range = 0-14) as well as a focus group interview. Exploratory self-reported measures on behaviour change including self-determined motivation (range = 1-5), intention, planning, action control, and habit strength (range = 1-6) were assessed pre and post intervention. Data analyses were performed using descriptive statistics and qualitative content analysis.ResultsThe development process resulted in a manualised gLiFE concept containing standardised information on gLiFE's content and structure. Feasibility testing: Six older adults (median = 72.8 years, 5 female) completed the feasibility study and rated safety (median = 7.0, IQR = 0.3) and acceptability as high (median = 1, IQR = 1). Participants implemented 9.5 LiFE activities (IQR = 4.0) into their daily routines. No adverse events occurred during the study. In the focus group, the group format and LiFE activities were perceived as positive and important for maintaining strength and balance capacity. Self-determined motivation intention, planning, and habit strength were rated higher post intervention.ConclusionThe developed conceptual gLiFE framework represents the basis for a gLiFE format with potential for standardised large-scale implementation. Proof-of-concept could be demonstrated in a group of community-dwelling older adults at risk of falling. The public health potential of gLiFE in terms of (cost-)effectiveness is currently being evaluated in a large trial.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov NCT03412123. Registered on January 26, 2018.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Perinatal depression is a prevalent public health concern. Although preventive interventions exist, there is limited literature on the acceptability and appropriateness of these interventions, especially those delivered by paraprofessionals. The Mothers and Babies Program (MB) is a group-based perinatal depression preventive intervention delivered prenatally. A cluster-randomized controlled trial examined the acceptability, appropriateness, and effectiveness of MB delivered by mental health professionals compared to paraprofessional staff from home visiting programs. METHODS:The full study enrolled 874 pregnant women. Fifty-three facilitators were trained and delivered the MB intervention to women in one of seven states in the United States. Semi-structured interviews were attempted with a randomly-selected subset of the full sample of pregnant women who received the MB intervention and with all facilitators. Specifically, interviews were conducted with 88 women who received the MB group intervention (45 in the paraprofessional-led arm and 43 in the mental health professional-led arm) and 46 women who facilitated the groups (27 home visiting staff and 19 mental health professionals). Interviews were conducted over the phone in English or Spanish and audio recorded. The recordings were translated into English, as needed, and transcribed. Thematic analysis was conducted using NVIVO to identify key themes related to intervention acceptability and appropriateness. Similarities and differences between study arms were explored. RESULTS:Clients and facilitators found the MB content and group format acceptable. Challenges included maintaining group attendance, transportation issues, and managing group discussion. Overall, facilitators found the intervention appropriate for pregnant clients with some challenges presented for clients in crisis situations, experiencing housing instability, and with literacy and learning challenges. Participants provided suggestions for improvement, both for the course content and implementation. There were no significant differences found between study arms. CONCLUSIONS:Overall, clients and facilitators enjoyed MB irrespective of study arm, and facilitators found the intervention appropriate for the population. These findings add to the qualitative literature on perinatal depression preventive interventions, specifically those delivered by paraprofessionals. TRIAL REGISTRATION:This trial is registered on ClinicalTrials.gov (Initial post: December 1, 2016; identifier: NCT02979444).

Project description:BackgroundPrevious systematic reviews have indicated that exercise-based cardiac rehabilitation (ExCR) for patients with heart failure (HF) has a beneficial effect on health-related quality-of-life (HRQoL) and exercise capacity. However, there is uncertainty regarding potential differential effects of ExCR across HF patient subgroups.ObjectivesThe authors sought to undertake an individual participant data (IPD) meta-analysis to: 1) assess the impact of ExCR on HRQoL and exercise capacity in patients with HF; and 2) investigate differential effects of ExCR according to a range of patient characteristics: age, sex, ethnicity, New York Heart Association functional class, ischemic etiology, ejection fraction, and exercise capacity.MethodsA single dataset was produced, comprising randomized trials where ExCR (delivered for 3 weeks or more) was compared with a no exercise control group. Each trial provided IPD on HRQoL or exercise capacity (or both), with follow-up of 6 months or more. One- and 2-stage meta-analysis models were used to investigate the effect of ExCR overall and the interactions between ExCR and participant characteristics.ResultsIPD was obtained from 13 trials for 3,990 patients, predominantly (97%) with reduced ejection fraction HF. Compared with the control group, there was a statistically significant difference in favor of ExCR for HRQoL and exercise capacity. At 12-month follow-up, improvements were seen in 6-min walk test (mean 21.0 m; 95% confidence interval: 1.57 to 40.4 m; p = 0.034) and Minnesota Living With HF score (mean improvement 5.9; 95% confidence interval: 1.0 to 10.9; p = 0.018). No consistent evidence was found of differential intervention effects across patient subgroups.ConclusionsThese results, based on an IPD meta-analysis of randomized trials, confirm the benefit of ExCR on HRQoL and exercise capacity and support the Class I recommendation of current international clinical guidelines that ExCR should be offered to all HF patients. (Exercise Training for Chronic Heart Failure [ExTraMATCH II]: protocol for an individual participant data meta-analysis; PROSPERO: international database of systematic reviews CRD42014007170).

Dataset Information

Group or individual lifestyle-integrated functional exercise (LiFE)? A qualitative analysis of acceptability.

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Trial registration

Publications

Group or individual lifestyle-integrated functional exercise (LiFE)? A qualitative analysis of acceptability.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets