Home-Based Exercise Supported by General Practitioner Practices: Ineffective in a Sample of Chronically Ill, Mobility-Limited Older Adults (the HOMEfit Randomized Controlled Trial)
- Autores: Timo Hinrichs, Bettina Bücker, Renate Klaaßen Mielke, Michael Brach, Stefan Wilm, Petra Platen, Anna Mai-
- Localización: Journal of the American Geriatrics Society, ISSN 0002-8614, Vol. 64, Nº. 11, 2016, págs. 2270-2279
- Idioma: inglés
- Enlaces
-
Resumen
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.
