Abbie P Wrights1, Christie W Fain1, Michael E Miller2, W Jack Rejeski1, Jeff D Williamson3, Anthony P Marsh4. 1. Department of Health and Exercise Science, Wake Forest University, Winston-Salem, NC, United States. 2. Department of Biostatistical Sciences, Wake Forest School of Medicine, Winston-Salem, NC, United States. 3. Department of Gerontology and Geriatric Medicine, Wake Forest School of Medicine, Winston-Salem, NC, United States. 4. Department of Health and Exercise Science, Wake Forest University, Winston-Salem, NC, United States. Electronic address: marshap@wfu.edu.
Abstract
PURPOSE: In partnership with six Continuing Care Retirement Communities (CCRCs), the current study focused on the feasibility of recruiting a representative sample of residents and then assessing their functional health. MATERIAL AND METHODS: With our guidance, each of the six CCRCs recruited a volunteer (V-Group) and random (R-Group) sample of independent living residents. We provided face-to-face training and ongoing remote electronic support to the CCRC staff on the testing battery and the Web-based data entry system. The testing battery was consisted of demographic, physical function, and psychosocial assessments. RESULTS: After training, CCRC staff were receptive to the study goals and successfully used the data entry Website. In the V-Group (N=189), 76% were already participating in CCRC wellness programs. We attempted to recruit a random, unbiased (R-Group) sample of 20% (n=105) of eligible residents; however, only 30 consented to be tested and 70% of this group (21/30) were also already participating in a wellness program. Mean age of all participants was 82.9 years. The V-Group had a higher Short Physical Performance Battery (SPPB) total score (least squares mean [SE], 9.4 [0.2] vs 8.2 [0.4], p=0.014) and SPPB gait speed component score (3.5 [0.1] vs 3.0 [0.2], p=0.007) and spent more time doing moderate-to-vigorous physical activity (300 [21] vs 163 [49] min/week, p=0.013) compared to the R-Group. IMPLICATIONS: While it is feasible to recruit, assess and transmit data on residents' functional health in partnership with CCRCs, population validity was severely compromised. Attention needs to be given to the development of more effective methods to recruit less interested residents.
PURPOSE: In partnership with six Continuing Care Retirement Communities (CCRCs), the current study focused on the feasibility of recruiting a representative sample of residents and then assessing their functional health. MATERIAL AND METHODS: With our guidance, each of the six CCRCs recruited a volunteer (V-Group) and random (R-Group) sample of independent living residents. We provided face-to-face training and ongoing remote electronic support to the CCRC staff on the testing battery and the Web-based data entry system. The testing battery was consisted of demographic, physical function, and psychosocial assessments. RESULTS: After training, CCRC staff were receptive to the study goals and successfully used the data entry Website. In the V-Group (N=189), 76% were already participating in CCRC wellness programs. We attempted to recruit a random, unbiased (R-Group) sample of 20% (n=105) of eligible residents; however, only 30 consented to be tested and 70% of this group (21/30) were also already participating in a wellness program. Mean age of all participants was 82.9 years. The V-Group had a higher Short Physical Performance Battery (SPPB) total score (least squares mean [SE], 9.4 [0.2] vs 8.2 [0.4], p=0.014) and SPPB gait speed component score (3.5 [0.1] vs 3.0 [0.2], p=0.007) and spent more time doing moderate-to-vigorous physical activity (300 [21] vs 163 [49] min/week, p=0.013) compared to the R-Group. IMPLICATIONS: While it is feasible to recruit, assess and transmit data on residents' functional health in partnership with CCRCs, population validity was severely compromised. Attention needs to be given to the development of more effective methods to recruit less interested residents.
Authors: Jennifer Reichstadt; Colin A Depp; Lawrence A Palinkas; David P Folsom; Dilip V Jeste Journal: Am J Geriatr Psychiatry Date: 2007-03 Impact factor: 4.105
Authors: Barbara Resnick; Marjorie Simpson; Elizabeth Galik; Anita Bercovitz; Ann L Gruber-Baldini; Sheryl Zimmerman; Jay Magaziner Journal: Rehabil Nurs Date: 2006 Mar-Apr Impact factor: 1.625
Authors: John E Morley; Gideon Caplan; Matteo Cesari; Birong Dong; Joseph H Flaherty; George T Grossberg; Iva Holmerova; Paul R Katz; Raymond Koopmans; Milta O Little; Finbarr Martin; Martin Orrell; Joseph Ouslander; Marilyn Rantz; Barbara Resnick; Yves Rolland; Debbie Tolson; Jean Woo; Bruno Vellas Journal: J Am Med Dir Assoc Date: 2014-04-03 Impact factor: 4.669
Authors: Graziano Onder; Brenda W J H Penninx; Pablo Lapuerta; Linda P Fried; Glenn V Ostir; Jack M Guralnik; Marco Pahor Journal: J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci Date: 2002-05 Impact factor: 6.053
Authors: Jacqueline Kerr; Dori E Rosenberg; Andrea Nathan; Rachel A Millstein; Jordan A Carlson; Katie Crist; Kari Wasilenko; Khalisa Bolling; Cynthia M Castro; David M Buchner; Simon J Marshall Journal: Contemp Clin Trials Date: 2012-08-17 Impact factor: 2.226
Authors: Barbara Resnick; Ingrid Petzer-Aboff; Elizabeth Galik; Karin Russ; Jeanne Cayo; Marjorie Simpson; Sheryl Zimmerman Journal: J Am Med Dir Assoc Date: 2008-02 Impact factor: 4.669
Authors: Ryan Van Patten; Zanjbeel Mahmood; Tanya T Nguyen; Jacqueline E Maye; Ho-Cheol Kim; Dilip V Jeste; Elizabeth W Twamley Journal: J Int Neuropsychol Soc Date: 2021-03-22 Impact factor: 2.892