Dataset Information

Online-Delivered Group and Personal Exercise Programs to Support Low Active Older Adults' Mental Health During the COVID-19 Pandemic: Randomized Controlled Trial.

ABSTRACT:

Background

In response to the COVID-19 pandemic, experts in mental health science emphasized the importance of developing and evaluating approaches to support and maintain the mental health of older adults.

Objective

The aim of this study was to assess whether a group-based exercise program relative to a personal exercise program (both delivered online) and waitlist control (WLC) can improve the psychological health of previously low active older adults during the early stages of the COVID-19 pandemic.

Methods

The Seniors COVID-19 Pandemic and Exercise (SCOPE) trial was a 3-arm, parallel randomized controlled trial conducted between May and September 2020 in which low active older adults (aged ≥65 years) were recruited via media outlets and social media. After baseline assessments, consented participants were randomized to one of two 12-week exercise programs (delivered online by older adult instructors) or a WLC condition. A total of 241 older adults (n=187 women) provided baseline measures (via online questionnaires), were randomized (n_group=80, n_personal=82, n_control=79), and completed measures every 2 weeks for the duration of the trial. The trial's primary outcome was psychological flourishing. Secondary outcomes included global measures of mental and physical health, life satisfaction, and depression symptoms.

Results

The results of latent growth modeling revealed no intervention effects for flourishing, life satisfaction, or depression symptoms (P>.05 for all). Participants in the group condition displayed improved mental health relative to WLC participants over the first 10 weeks (effect size [ES]=0.288-0.601), and although the week 12 effect (ES=0.375) was in the same direction the difference was not statistically significant (P=.089). Participants in the personal condition displayed improved mental health, when compared with WLC participants, in the same medium ES range (ES=0.293-0.565) over the first 8 weeks, and while the effects were of a similar magnitude at weeks 10 (ES=0.455, P=.069) and 12 (ES=0.258, P=.353), they were not statistically significant. In addition, participants in the group condition displayed improvements in physical health when compared with the WLC (ES=0.079-0.496) across all 12 weeks of the study following baseline. No differences were observed between the personal exercise condition and WLC for physical health (slope P=.271).

Conclusions

There were no intervention effects for the trial's primary outcome (ie, psychological flourishing). It is possible that the high levels of psychological flourishing at baseline may have limited the extent to which those indicators could continue to improve further through intervention (ie, potential ceiling effects). However, the intervention effects for mental and physical health point to the potential capacity of low-cost and scalable at-home programs to support the mental and physical health of previously inactive adults in the COVID-19 pandemic.

Trial registration

ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04412343; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04412343.

SUBMITTER: Beauchamp MR

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8330630 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BACKGROUND:The wide mental health treatment gap continues to pose a global and local public health challenge. Online support groups are on the rise and could be used to complement formal treatment services for mental health. OBJECTIVE:This study aimed to examine the prevalence of online support group use and explore factors associated with the use in the general population using data from a national cross-sectional mental health survey in Singapore. METHODS:Singapore residents aged 18 years and above participated in a nationally representative household survey in which the World Health Organization Composite International Diagnostic Interview 3.0 was administered by trained interviewers to examine the use of online support groups for mental health. Multiple logistic regressions were used to analyze the association of online support group use with various sociodemographic and health factors. RESULTS:A total of 6110 respondents with complete data were included in this study. Overall, 10 individuals per 1000 adults (1%) reported seeking help from online support groups for their mental health problems. Compared to younger adults (those aged 18 to 34 years) and those with university education, individuals aged 50 to 64 years (P<.001; OR 0.1, 95% CI 0.0-0.3) and those with preuniversity qualifications (P=.02; OR 0.1, 95% CI 0.0-0.8) were less likely to use online support groups for mental health, respectively. Participants with a Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fourth Edition (DSM-IV) mental disorder were 6.8 times more likely (P<.001; 95% CI 3.0-15.4) to use an online support group; in particular, individuals with major depressive disorder (P<.001; OR 5.4, 95% CI 2.1-13.8) and obsessive compulsive disorder (P=.01; OR 3.5, 95% CI 1.3-9.7) were more likely to use an online support group for their mental health. CONCLUSIONS:Online support groups could be used to complement formal treatment services, especially for mood and anxiety-related disorders. As online support group use for mental health issues may be more prevalent among younger people, early detection and accurate information in online support groups may guide individuals toward seeking professional help for their mental health problems.

Project description:BackgroundThe aim of this work was to develop a National Evaluation Framework to facilitate the standardization of delivery, quality, reporting, and evaluation of diabetes education and support programs delivered throughout Australia through the National Diabetes Services Scheme (NDSS). The NDSS is funded by the Australian Government, and provides access to diabetes information, education, support, and subsidized product across diverse settings in each state and territory of Australia through seven independent service-providers. This article reports the approach undertaken to develop the Framework.MethodsA participatory approach was undertaken, focused on adopting nationally consistent outcomes and indicators, nominating objectives and measurement tools, specifying evaluation processes, and developing quality standards. Existing programs were classified based on related, overarching indicators enabling the adoption of a tiered system of evaluation.ResultsTwo outcomes (i.e., improved clinical, reduced cost) and four indicators (i.e., improved knowledge and understanding, self-management, self-determination, psychosocial adjustment) were adopted from the Eigenmann and Colagiuri national consensus position statement for diabetes education. This allowed for the identification of objectives (i.e., improved empowerment, reduced distress, autonomy supportive program delivery, consumer satisfaction) and related measurement instruments. Programs were categorized as comprehensive, topic-specific, or basic education, with comprehensive programs allocated to receive the highest-level of evaluation. Eight quality standards were developed, with existing programs tested against those standards. Based on the results of testing, two comprehensive (OzDAFNE for people with type 1 diabetes, DESMOND for people with type 2 diabetes), and eight topic-specific (CarbSmart, ShopSmart, MonitorSmart, FootSmart, MedSmart, Living with Insulin, Insulin Pump Workshop, Ready Set Go - Let's Move) structured diabetes self-management education and support programs were nominated for national delivery.ConclusionsThe National Evaluation Framework has facilitated consistency of program quality, delivery, and evaluation of programs delivered by multiple service providers across diverse contexts. The Framework could be applied by other service providers who facilitate multiple diabetes education and support programs and could be adapted for use in other chronic disease populations where education and support are indicated.

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.