Background: The 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. Methods: The 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. Results: The 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. Conclusion: The 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 communitydwelling 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.

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.

Objective: Habitual behaviours are triggered automatically, with little conscious forethought. Theory suggests that making healthy behaviours habitual, and breaking the habits that underpin many ingrained unhealthy behaviours, promotes long-term behaviour change. This has prompted interest in incorporating habit formation and disruption strategies into behaviour change interventions. Yet, notable research gaps limit understanding of how to harness habit to change real-world behaviours. Methods: Discussions among health psychology researchers and practitioners, at the 2019 European Health Psychology Society 'Synergy Expert Meeting' , generated pertinent questions to guide further research into habit and health behaviour.

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

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.