IMPORTANCE: For many older people, long-term functional limitations persist after a hip fracture. The efficacy of a home exercise program with minimal supervision after formal hip fracture rehabilitation ends has not been established. OBJECTIVE: To determine whether a home exercise program with minimal contact with a physical therapist improved function after formal hip fracture rehabilitation ended. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Randomized clinical trial conducted from September 2008 to October 2012 in the homes of 232 functionally limited older adults who had completed traditional rehabilitation after a hip fracture. INTERVENTIONS: The intervention group (n = 120) received functionally oriented exercises (such as standing from a chair, climbing a step) taught by a physical therapist and performed independently by the participants in their homes for 6 months. The attention control group (n = 112) received in-home and telephone-based cardiovascular nutrition education. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Physical function assessed at baseline, 6 months (ie, at completion of the intervention), and 9 months by blinded assessors. The primary outcome was change in function at 6 months measured by the Short Physical Performance Battery (SPPB; range 0-12, higher score indicates better function) and the Activity Measure for Post-Acute Care (AM-PAC) mobility and daily activity (range, 23-85 and 9-101, higher score indicates better function). RESULTS: Among the 232 randomized patients, 195 were followed up at 6 months and included in the primary analysis. The intervention group (n=100) showed significant improvement relative to the control group (n=95) in functional mobility (mean SPPB scores for intervention group: 6.2 [SD, 2.7] at baseline, 7.2 [SD, 3] at 6 months; control group: 6.0 [SD, 2.8] at baseline, 6.2 [SD, 3] at 6 months; and between-group differences: 0.8 [95% CI, 0.4 to 1.2], P < .001; mean AM-PAC mobility scores for intervention group: 56.2 [SD, 7.3] at baseline, 58.1 [SD, 7.9] at 6 months; control group: 56 [SD, 7.1] at baseline, 56.6 [SD, 8.1] at 6 months; and between-group difference, 1.3 [95% CI, 0.2 to 2.4], P = .03; and mean AM-PAC daily activity scores for intervention group: 57.4 [SD, 13.7] at baseline, 61.3 [SD, 15.7] at 6 months; control group: 58.2 [SD, 15.2] at baseline, 58.6 [SD, 15.3] at 6 months; and between-group difference, 3.5 [95% CI, 0.9 to 6.0], P = .03). In multiple imputation analyses, between-group differences remained significant for SPPB and AM-PAC daily activity, but not for mobility. Significant between-group differences persisted at 9 months for all functional measures with and without imputation. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Among patients who had completed standard rehabilitation after hip fracture, the use of a home-based functionally oriented exercise program resulted in modest improvement in physical function at 6 months after randomization. The clinical importance of these findings remains to be determined. TRIAL REGISTRATION: clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT00592813.
RCT Entities:
IMPORTANCE: For many older people, long-term functional limitations persist after a hip fracture. The efficacy of a home exercise program with minimal supervision after formal hip fracture rehabilitation ends has not been established. OBJECTIVE: To determine whether a home exercise program with minimal contact with a physical therapist improved function after formal hip fracture rehabilitation ended. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Randomized clinical trial conducted from September 2008 to October 2012 in the homes of 232 functionally limited older adults who had completed traditional rehabilitation after a hip fracture. INTERVENTIONS: The intervention group (n = 120) received functionally oriented exercises (such as standing from a chair, climbing a step) taught by a physical therapist and performed independently by the participants in their homes for 6 months. The attention control group (n = 112) received in-home and telephone-based cardiovascular nutrition education. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Physical function assessed at baseline, 6 months (ie, at completion of the intervention), and 9 months by blinded assessors. The primary outcome was change in function at 6 months measured by the Short Physical Performance Battery (SPPB; range 0-12, higher score indicates better function) and the Activity Measure for Post-Acute Care (AM-PAC) mobility and daily activity (range, 23-85 and 9-101, higher score indicates better function). RESULTS: Among the 232 randomized patients, 195 were followed up at 6 months and included in the primary analysis. The intervention group (n=100) showed significant improvement relative to the control group (n=95) in functional mobility (mean SPPB scores for intervention group: 6.2 [SD, 2.7] at baseline, 7.2 [SD, 3] at 6 months; control group: 6.0 [SD, 2.8] at baseline, 6.2 [SD, 3] at 6 months; and between-group differences: 0.8 [95% CI, 0.4 to 1.2], P < .001; mean AM-PAC mobility scores for intervention group: 56.2 [SD, 7.3] at baseline, 58.1 [SD, 7.9] at 6 months; control group: 56 [SD, 7.1] at baseline, 56.6 [SD, 8.1] at 6 months; and between-group difference, 1.3 [95% CI, 0.2 to 2.4], P = .03; and mean AM-PAC daily activity scores for intervention group: 57.4 [SD, 13.7] at baseline, 61.3 [SD, 15.7] at 6 months; control group: 58.2 [SD, 15.2] at baseline, 58.6 [SD, 15.3] at 6 months; and between-group difference, 3.5 [95% CI, 0.9 to 6.0], P = .03). In multiple imputation analyses, between-group differences remained significant for SPPB and AM-PAC daily activity, but not for mobility. Significant between-group differences persisted at 9 months for all functional measures with and without imputation. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Among patients who had completed standard rehabilitation after hip fracture, the use of a home-based functionally oriented exercise program resulted in modest improvement in physical function at 6 months after randomization. The clinical importance of these findings remains to be determined. TRIAL REGISTRATION: clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT00592813.
Authors: Stephen M Haley; Wendy J Coster; Patricia L Andres; Larry H Ludlow; Pengsheg Ni; Tamara L Y Bond; Samuel J Sinclair; Alan M Jette Journal: Med Care Date: 2004-01 Impact factor: 2.983
Authors: J Magaziner; W Hawkes; J R Hebel; S I Zimmerman; K M Fox; M Dolan; G Felsenthal; J Kenzora Journal: J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci Date: 2000-09 Impact factor: 6.053
Authors: Marlene Fransen; Mark Woodward; Robyn Norton; Elizabeth Robinson; Meg Butler; A John Campbell Journal: J Am Geriatr Soc Date: 2002-04 Impact factor: 5.562
Authors: Jonathan P Singer; Joshua M Diamond; Cynthia J Gries; Jamiela McDonnough; Paul D Blanc; Rupal Shah; Monica Y Dean; Beverly Hersh; Paul J Wolters; Sofya Tokman; Selim M Arcasoy; Kristy Ramphal; John R Greenland; Nancy Smith; Pricilla Heffernan; Lori Shah; Pavan Shrestha; Jeffrey A Golden; Nancy P Blumenthal; Debbie Huang; Joshua Sonett; Steven Hays; Michelle Oyster; Patricia P Katz; Hilary Robbins; Melanie Brown; Lorriana E Leard; Jasleen Kukreja; Matthew Bacchetta; Errol Bush; Frank D'Ovidio; Melanie Rushefski; Kashif Raza; Jason D Christie; David J Lederer Journal: Am J Respir Crit Care Med Date: 2015-12-01 Impact factor: 21.405
Authors: Antonio De Vincentis; Astrid Ursula Behr; Giuseppe Bellelli; Marco Bravi; Anna Castaldo; Lucia Galluzzo; Giovanni Iolascon; Stefania Maggi; Emilio Martini; Alberto Momoli; Graziano Onder; Marco Paoletta; Luca Pietrogrande; Mauro Roselli; Mauro Ruggeri; Carmelinda Ruggiero; Fabio Santacaterina; Luigi Tritapepe; Amedeo Zurlo; Raffaele Antonelli Incalzi Journal: Aging Clin Exp Res Date: 2021-07-21 Impact factor: 3.636
Authors: David J Keene; Colin Forde; Thavapriya Sugavanam; Mark A Williams; Sarah E Lamb Journal: BMC Musculoskelet Disord Date: 2020-07-04 Impact factor: 2.362
Authors: Elizabeth C Lorenz; Andrea L Cheville; Hatem Amer; Brian R Kotajarvi; Mark D Stegall; Tanya M Petterson; Walter K Kremers; Fernando G Cosio; Nathan K LeBrasseur Journal: Clin Transplant Date: 2017-04-17 Impact factor: 2.863
Authors: Marcia L Stefanick; Robert L Brunner; X Leng; Marian C Limacher; Chloe E Bird; David O Garcia; Patricia E Hogan; Michael J LaMonte; Rachel H Mackey; Karen C Johnson; Andrea LaCroix; Jennifer G Robinson; Rebecca A Seguin; Hilary A Tindle; Sylvia Wassertheil-Smoller Journal: J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci Date: 2016-03 Impact factor: 6.053
Authors: Jonathan P Singer; Joshua M Diamond; Michaela R Anderson; Patricia P Katz; Ken Covinsky; Michelle Oyster; Tatiana Blue; Allison Soong; Laurel Kalman; Pavan Shrestha; Selim M Arcasoy; John R Greenland; Lori Shah; Jasleen Kukreja; Nancy P Blumenthal; Imaani Easthausen; Jeffrey A Golden; Amika McBurnie; Ed Cantu; Joshua Sonett; Steven Hays; Hilary Robbins; Kashif Raza; Matthew Bacchetta; Rupal J Shah; Frank D'Ovidio; Aida Venado; Jason D Christie; David J Lederer Journal: Am J Transplant Date: 2018-05-14 Impact factor: 8.086