Search

CONTEXT: Long-term adherence to physical activity (PA) interventions is challenging. The Lifestyle-integrated Functional Exercise programmes were adapted Lifestyle-integrated Functional Exercise (aLiFE) to include more challenging activities and a behavioural change framework, and then enhanced Lifestyle-integrated Functional Exercise (eLiFE) to be delivered using smartphones and smartwatches. OBJECTIVES: To (1) compare adherence measures, (2) identify determinants of adherence and (3) assess the impact on outcome measures of a lifestyle-integrated programme. DESIGN, SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: A multicentre, feasibility randomised controlled trial including participants aged 61-70 years conducted in three European cities. INTERVENTIONS: Six-month trainer-supported aLiFE or eLiFE compared with a control group, which received written PA advice. OUTCOME MEASURES: Self-reporting adherence per month using a single question and after 6-month intervention using the Exercise Adherence Rating Scale (EARS, score range 6-24). Treatment outcomes included function and disability scores (measured using the Late-Life Function and Disability Index) and sensor-derived physical behaviour complexity measure. Determinants of adherence (EARS score) were identified using linear multivariate analysis. Linear regression estimated the association of adherence on treatment outcome. RESULTS: We included 120 participants randomised to the intervention groups (aLiFE/eLiFE) (66.3±2.3 years, 53% women). The 106 participants reassessed after 6 months had a mean EARS score of 16.0±5.1. Better adherence was associated with lower number of medications taken, lower depression and lower risk of functional decline. We estimated adherence to significantly increase basic lower extremity function by 1.3 points (p<0.0001), advanced lower extremity function by 1.0 point (p<0.0001) and behavioural complexity by 0.008 per 1.0 point higher EARS score (F(3,91)=3.55, p=0.017) regardless of group allocation. CONCLU

INTRODUCTION: Gait speed is a simple and safe measure with strong predictive value for negative health outcomes in clinical practice, yet in-laboratory gait speed seems not representative for daily-life gait speed. This study aimed to investigate the interrelation between and robustness of in-laboratory and daily-life gait speed measures over 12 months in 61- to 70-year-old adults. METHODS: Gait speed was assessed in laboratory through standardized stopwatch tests and in daily life by 7 days of trunk accelerometry in the PreventIT cohort, at baseline, and after 6 and 12 months. The interrelation was investigated using Pearson's correlations between gait speed measures at each time point. For robustness, changes over time and variance components were assessed by ANOVA and measurement agreement over time by Bland-Altman analyses. RESULTS: Included were 189 participants (median age 67 years [interquartile range: 64-68], 52.2% females). In-laboratory and daily-life gait speed measures showed low correlations (Pearson's r = 0.045-0.455) at each time point. Moreover, both in-laboratory and daily-life gait speed measures appeared robust over time, with comparable and smaller within-subject than between-subject variance (range 0.001-0.095 m/s and 0.032-0.397 m/s, respectively) and minimal differences between measurements over time (Bland-Altman) with wide limits of agreement (standard deviation of mean difference range: 0.12-0.34 m/s). DISCUSSION/CONCLUSION: In-laboratory and daily-life gait speed measures show robust assessments of gait speed over 12 months and are distinct constructs in this population of high-functioning adults. This suggests that (a combination of) both measures may have added value in predicting health outcomes.

BACKGROUND Rehabilitative treatment plans after stroke are based on clinical examinations of functional capacity and patient-reported outcomes. Objective information about daily life performance is usually not available, but it may improve therapy personalization. OBJECTIVE To show that sensor-derived information about daily life performance is clinically valuable for counseling and the planning of rehabilitation programs for individual stroke patients who live at home. Performance information is clinically valuable if it can be used as a decision aid for the therapeutic management or counseling of individual patients. METHODS This was an observational, cross-sectional case series including 15 ambulatory stroke patients. Motor performance in daily life was assessed with body-worn inertial sensors attached to the wrists, shanks and trunk that estimated basic physical activity and various measures of walking and arm activity in daily life. Stroke severity, motor function and activity, and degree of independence were quantified clinically by standard assessments and patient-reported outcomes. Motor performance was recorded for an average of 5.03 ± 1.1 h on the same day as the clinical assessment. The clinical value of performance information is explored in a narrative style by considering individual patient performance and capacity information. RESULTS The patients were aged 59.9 ± 9.8 years (mean ± SD), were 6.5 ± 7.2 years post stroke, and had a National Institutes of Health Stroke Score of 4.0 ± 2.6. Capacity and performance measures showed high variability. There were substantial discrepancies between performance and capacity measures in some patients. CONCLUSIONS This case series shows that information about motor performance in daily life can be valuable for tailoring rehabilitative therapy plans and counseling according to the needs of individual stroke patients. Although the short recording time (average of 5.03 h) limited the scope of the conclusions, this stu

Contains fulltext : 220681.pdf (Publisher’s version ) (Closed access), Mobile health technologies (wearable, portable, body-fixed sensors, or domestic-integrated devices) that quantify mobility in unsupervised, daily living environments are emerging as complementary clinical assessments. Data collected in these ecologically valid, patient-relevant settings can overcome limitations of conventional clinical assessments, as they capture fluctuating and rare events. These data could support clinical decision making and could also serve as outcomes in clinical trials. However, studies that directly compared assessments made in unsupervised and supervised (eg, in the laboratory or hospital) settings point to large disparities, even in the same parameters of mobility. These differences appear to be affected by psychological, physiological, cognitive, environmental, and technical factors, and by the types of mobilities and diagnoses assessed. To facilitate the successful adaptation of the unsupervised assessment of mobility into clinical practice and clinical trials, clinicians and researchers should consider these disparities and the multiple factors that contribute to them.

Background: Behavioral change is the key to alter individuals' lifestyle from sedentary to active. The aim was to assess the feasibility of delivering a Lifestyle-integrated Functional Exercise programme and evaluate the delivery of the intervention by use of digital technology (eLiFE) to prevent functional decline in 61-70 year-old adults. Methods: This multicentre, feasibility randomized controlled trial was run in three countries (Norway, Germany, and the Netherlands). Out of 7,500 potential participants, 926 seniors (12%) were screened and 180 participants randomized to eLiFE (n = 61), aLiFE (n = 59), and control group (n = 60). eLiFE participants used an application on smartphones and smartwatches while aLiFE participants used traditional paper-based versions of the same lifestyle-integrated exercise intervention. Participants were followed for 12 months, with assessments at baseline, after a 6 month active trainer-supported intervention, and after a further 6 months of unsupervised continuation of the programme. Results: At 6 months, 87% of participants completed post-test, and 77% completed the final assessment at 12 months. Participants were willing to be part of the programme, with compliance and reported adherence relatively high. Despite small errors during start-up in the technological component, intervention delivery by use of technology appeared acceptable. No serious adverse events were related to the interventions. All groups improved regarding clinical outcomes over time, and complexity metrics show potential as outcome measure in young seniors. Conclusion: This feasibility RCT provides evidence that an ICT-based lifestyle-integrated exercise intervention, focusing on behavioral change, is feasible and safe for young seniors. Clinical Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov, identifier: NCT03065088. Registered on 14 February 2017.

BACKGROUND: Understanding the association between motor capacity (MC) (what people can do in a standardized environment), mobility performance (MP) (what people actually do in real-life) and falls is important for early detection of and counteracting on functional decline, particularly in the rapidly growing population of young seniors. Therefore, this study aims to 1) explore the association between MC and MP, and between MC and falls, and 2) investigate whether challenging MC measures are better associated with MP and falls than basic MC measures. METHODS: Basic (habitual gait speed, Timed Up-and-Go) and challenging (fast gait speed, Community Balance & Mobility Scale) MC measures were performed in 169 young seniors (61-70 years). MP was assessed using one-week sensor-monitoring including time being sedentary, light active, and at least moderately active. Falls in the previous six months were reported. Associations and discriminative ability were calculated using correlation, regression and receiver operating curve analysis. RESULTS: Mean age was 66.4 (SD 2.4) years (50.6 % women). Small to moderate associations (r = 0.06-0.31; p < .001-.461) were found between MC, MP and falls. Challenging MC measures showed closer associations with MP and falls (r = 0.10-0.31; p < .001-.461) compared to basic (r = 0.06-0.22; p = .012-.181), remained significant in three out of four regression models explaining 2.5-8.6 % of the variance, and showed highest discriminative ability (area under the curve = 0.59-0.70) in all analyses. CONCLUSIONS: Challenging MC measures are closer associated with mobility performance and falls as compared to basic MC measures in young seniors. This indicates the importance of applying challenging motor capacity assessments in young seniors. On the same note, small to moderate associations imply a need for an assessment of both MC and MP in order to capture the best possible MC and the actual daily-life MP in young seniors.

INTRODUCTION: The European population is rapidly ageing. In order to handle substantial future challenges in the healthcare system, we need to shift focus from treatment towards health promotion. The PreventIT project has adapted the Lifestyle-integrated Exercise (LiFE) programme and developed an intervention for healthy young older adults at risk of accelerated functional decline. The intervention targets balance, muscle strength and physical activity, and is delivered either via a smartphone application (enhanced LiFE, eLiFE) or by use of paper manuals (adapted LiFE, aLiFE). METHODS AND ANALYSIS: The PreventIT study is a multicentre, three-armed feasibility randomised controlled trial, comparing eLiFE and aLiFE against a control group that receives international guidelines of physical activity. It is performed in three European cities in Norway, Germany, and The Netherlands. The primary objective is to assess the feasibility and usability of the interventions, and to assess changes in daily life function as measured by the Late-Life Function and Disability Instrument scale and a physical behaviour complexity metric. Participants are assessed at baseline, after the 6 months intervention period and at 1 year after randomisation. Men and women between 61 and 70 years of age are randomly drawn from regional registries and respondents screened for risk of functional decline to recruit and randomise 180 participants (60 participants per study arm). ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethical approval was received at all three trial sites. Baseline results are intended to be published by late 2018, with final study findings expected in early 2019. Subgroup and further in-depth analyses will subsequently be published. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT03065088; Pre-results.