Background The ‘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. Methods Older 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. Results Three 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. Conclusions Although 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 registration The study was preregistered under clinicaltrials.gov (identifier: NCT03462654) on March 12th 2018

ZusammenfassungDieser Beitrag stellt eine Aktualisierung des Empfehlungspapiers der Bundesinitiative Sturzprävention für das körperliche Gruppentraining zur Sturzprävention bei älteren, zu Hause lebenden Menschen aus dem Jahre 2009 unter Berücksichtigung aktueller Evidenz dar. Das aktualisierte Empfehlungspapier zielt darauf ab, die Umsetzung ambulanter Sturzpräventionsgruppen zu fördern sowie konkrete Empfehlungen für deren Einrichtung und Durchführung auszusprechen. Die Empfehlungen beziehen sich auf die Identifikation und Ansprache der Zielgruppe für gruppenbasierte Sturzpräventionsprogramme sowie auf die Programmgestaltung und Qualitätssicherung. Hintergründe zu Finanzierung und Trainer*innen-Ausbildung werden samt einer Auflistung der in Deutschland etablierten Programme ebenfalls dargelegt.

Background older persons can be grouped according to their objective risk of falling (ORF) and perceived risk of falling (PRF) into ‘vigorous’ (low ORF/PRF), ‘anxious’ (low ORF/high PRF), ‘stoic’ (high ORF/low PRF) and ‘aware’ (high ORF/PRF). Sensor-assessed daily walking activity of these four groups has not been investigated, yet. Objective we examined everyday walking activity in those four groups and its association with ORF and PRF. Design cross-sectional. Setting community. Subjects N = 294 participants aged 70 years and older. Methods ORF was determined based on multiple independent risk factors; PRF was determined based on the Short Falls Efficacy Scale-International. Subjects were allocated to the four groups accordingly. Linear regression was used to quantify the associations of these groups with the mean number of accelerometer-assessed steps per day over 1 week as the dependent variable. ‘Vigorous’ was used as the reference group. Results average number of steps per day in the four groups were 6,339 (‘vigorous’), 5,781 (‘anxious’), 4,555 (‘stoic’) and 4,528 (‘aware’). Compared with the ‘vigorous’, ‘stoic’ (−1,482; confidence interval (CI): −2,473; −491) and ‘aware’ (−1,481; CI: −2,504; −458) participants took significantly less steps, but not the ‘anxious’ (−580 steps; CI: −1,440; 280). Conclusion we have integrated a digital mobility outcome into a fall risk categorisation based on ORF and PRF. Steps per day in this sample of community-dwelling older persons were in accordance with their ORF rather than their PRF. Whether this grouping approach can be used for the specification of participants’ needs when taking part in programmes to prevent falls and simultaneously promote physical activity remains to be answered in intervention studies.

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, ngLiFE = 15, nLiFE = 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.

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 minutes 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, ngLiFE=15, nLiFE=15, mean age 78.5±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. https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03462654.

No abstract

This study examined the applicability of the health action process approach (HAPA) to walking duration in older adults and the added value of extending the HAPA by intrinsic motivation. Self-reports from older adults (N = 309; Mage = 78.7, 70–95 years) regarding activity-related intrinsic motivation and HAPA variables were collected at the baseline of a fall prevention intervention study. Walking duration at ≥3 metabolic equivalents of task was measured for 7 days via body-worn accelerometers. Two structural equation models with walking duration as a manifest outcome were specified. In both models, the model fit was acceptable, but intention and planning were not associated with walking duration. Intrinsic motivation was significantly related to most HAPA variables and walking duration. Variance explained for walking duration was R2 = .14 in the HAPA and R2 = .17 in the extended model. For explaining older adults’ walking duration, intrinsic motivation, but not HAPA-based intention and planning, seemed to be important.

No abstract