Assessing Physical Performance in Older Adults during Isolation or Lockdown Periods: Web-Based Video Conferencing as a Solution

Feasibility and acceptability of a remotely delivered, home-based, pragmatic resistance ‘exercise snacking’ intervention in community-dwelling older adults: a pilot randomised controlled trial

“…All 38 participants in this study successfully completed all physical function assessments remotely at both baseline and follow-up, and there were no reported issues with potential barriers such as the availability of equipment (e.g., appropriate chair for STS testing), having sufficient physical space within the home environment to perform the tests, or technical issues with the videoconferencing technology (i.e., Zoom). Although further validation work is needed in larger populations of older adults, these findings are supported by recent observations [ 9 ] that various physical function assessments (including the 5-STS and 30-STS tests) are both valid and reliable (ICC > 0.70) when conducted remotely compared to when performed face-to-face. Together these findings have promising implications for monitoring the effectiveness of remotely delivered exercise programs aimed at improving physical function in older adults.…”

“…While this short-term pilot trial was not designed nor adequately powered to detect between-group differences in measures of physical function, the modest changes in 5-STS and 30-STS performance (but not balance) at follow-up appeared to be similar across all three intervention groups and controls. Although physical function assessments performed remotely via videoconferencing show acceptable validity and reliability when compared to face-to-face assessments [ 9 ], the similar changes in 5-STS and 30-STS test performance in both the intervention and control groups may be explained by learning effects, particularly given the lack of test familiarisation, which may have reduced the sensitivity of these measures for detecting changes in physical function over time. While the short-term duration of the exercise intervention also likely influenced the magnitude of any changes (or between group differences) in physical function, previous findings suggest similar pragmatic and unsupervised resistance exercise approaches can be effective for improving measures of physical function (e.g., 60-second sit-to-stand performance) after 4 weeks [ 17 ].…”

“…There are several barriers to participation in supervised, community-based exercise programs in older adults, including time constraints associated with travel to an exercise facility [ 6 ], lack of transport [ 5 , 7 ], cost [ 8 ], and a dislike of exercise facilities and group activities [ 8 ]. In addition, physical distancing measures associated with the COVID-19 pandemic have also limited engagement in community-based exercise programs, while also presenting challenges for research studies involving supervised in-person exercise sessions and/or physical assessments [ 9 ]. There is a need, therefore, to identify feasible and safe exercise interventions that can be performed remotely by older adults, and to determine the feasibility of remote physical function assessments required to evaluate the effectiveness of such interventions.…”

Home-based High Intensity Functional Strength Training (HIFST) for Older Adults: A Protocol for a Pilot Randomized Controlled Trial and Qualitative Description of an Exercise Program to Prevent Functional Decline after an Injury

“…=20.17 Drop out 15%=20.17*1.15=23 Drop out 20%=20.17*1.2=24 24 participants rounded up to an even number to allow for equal numbers between groups 29 test-retest reliability: ICC=0.90 29 correlation with 1-mile walk time r=0.73 29 dual-task cognitive timed up and go (TUG-COG) 30,31 Assesses physical functioning (mobility and balance) and dual-task ability Time (s) required for participant to stand from a chair, walk 3 meters, turn and walk back to sit down (TUG) while counting backward by threes from a randomly selected number between 70-100. 30 healthy older adults: mean time TUG 8.4 s, mean TUG-COG 9.7-9.8 s, 30,31 cut-offs: identifying fallers 15s 31 test-retest reliability TUG-COG: ICC=0.98, interrater reliability TUG-COG ICC=0.94 30 Videoconferencing compared to face-to-face for TUG: ICC=0.83 72 30 -second chair stand test 29 Assesses physical functioning; lower body strength Number of full stands completed in 30 seconds from chair with arms folded across chest. 29 High-active older adults mean number of stands (sd) 13.3(2.8), low-active 10.8(3.6), 60-69 yrs.…”

“…12.9(3.0), 80-89 yrs. 11.9(3.6) 29 test-retest reliability ICC=0.89 29 correlation with 1RM leg press, r=0.77 29 Videoconferencing compared to face-to-face: ICC=0.97 72 Preclinical Mobility Limitation (PCML) Scale based on Mänty 32 Assesses PCML for 3 tasks (walking 0.5km, walking 2.0 km and climbing one flight of stairs) 32 PCML is classified no reported mobility difficulty and at least 1 modification in task frequency or performance 32 PCML increased risk of major mobility disability at 2 year followup 32 unknown California Older Adult Stroop Test (COAST) 33 Assesses executive functioning; inhibitory control 16 Involves reading congruent (same colour and word) and incongruent (mismatched colour and word) colour-word pairs. The COAST is designed for older adults and uses fewer items (50) per task, larger font and more easily distinguished colours.…”