Jennifer E Stevens-Lapsley1, Brian J Loyd2, Jason R Falvey2, Greg J Figiel2, Andrew J Kittelson2, Ethan U Cumbler3, Kathleen K Mangione4. 1. Physical Therapy Program, University of Colorado, Aurora, CO, USA Jennifer.stevens-lapsley@ucdenver.edu. 2. Physical Therapy Program, University of Colorado, Aurora, CO, USA. 3. Department of Geriatrics, University of Colorado School of Medicine, Aurora, CO, USA. 4. Department of Physical Therapy, Arcadia University, Glenside, PA, USA.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To determine whether a progressive multicomponent physical therapy intervention in the home setting can improve functional mobility for deconditioned older adults following acute hospitalization. DESIGN: Randomized controlled trial. SETTING:Patient homes in the Denver, CO, metropolitan area. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 22 homebound older adults age 65 and older (mean ± SD; 85.4 ±7.83); 12 were randomized to intervention group and 10 to the control group. INTERVENTION: The progressive multicomponent intervention consisted of home-based progressive strength, mobility and activities of daily living training. The control group consisted of usual care rehabilitation. MEASUREMENTS: A 4-meter walking speed, modified Physical Performance Test, Short Physical Performance Battery, 6-minute walk test. RESULTS: At the 60-day time point, the progressive multicomponent intervention group had significantly greater improvements in walking speed (mean change: 0.36 m/s vs. 0.14 m/s, p = 0.04), modified physical performance test (mean change: 6.18 vs. 0.98, p = 0.02) and Short Physical Performance Battery scores (mean change: 2.94 vs. 0.38, p = 0.02) compared with the usual care group. The progressive multicomponent intervention group also had a trend towards significant improvement in the 6-minute walk test at 60 days (mean change: 119.65 m vs. 19.28 m; p = 0.07). No adverse events associated with intervention were recorded. CONCLUSIONS: The progressive multicomponent intervention improved patient functional mobility following acute hospitalization more than usual care. Results from this study support the safety and feasibility of conducting a larger randomized controlled trial of progressive multicomponent intervention in this population. A more definitive study would require 150 patients to verify these conclusions given the effect sizes observed.
RCT Entities:
OBJECTIVE: To determine whether a progressive multicomponent physical therapy intervention in the home setting can improve functional mobility for deconditioned older adults following acute hospitalization. DESIGN: Randomized controlled trial. SETTING:Patient homes in the Denver, CO, metropolitan area. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 22 homebound older adults age 65 and older (mean ± SD; 85.4 ±7.83); 12 were randomized to intervention group and 10 to the control group. INTERVENTION: The progressive multicomponent intervention consisted of home-based progressive strength, mobility and activities of daily living training. The control group consisted of usual care rehabilitation. MEASUREMENTS: A 4-meter walking speed, modified Physical Performance Test, Short Physical Performance Battery, 6-minute walk test. RESULTS: At the 60-day time point, the progressive multicomponent intervention group had significantly greater improvements in walking speed (mean change: 0.36 m/s vs. 0.14 m/s, p = 0.04), modified physical performance test (mean change: 6.18 vs. 0.98, p = 0.02) and Short Physical Performance Battery scores (mean change: 2.94 vs. 0.38, p = 0.02) compared with the usual care group. The progressive multicomponent intervention group also had a trend towards significant improvement in the 6-minute walk test at 60 days (mean change: 119.65 m vs. 19.28 m; p = 0.07). No adverse events associated with intervention were recorded. CONCLUSIONS: The progressive multicomponent intervention improved patient functional mobility following acute hospitalization more than usual care. Results from this study support the safety and feasibility of conducting a larger randomized controlled trial of progressive multicomponent intervention in this population. A more definitive study would require 150 patients to verify these conclusions given the effect sizes observed.
Authors: Jason R Falvey; Kathleen K Mangione; Amy Nordon-Craft; Ethan Cumbler; Kristine L Burrows; Jeri E Forster; Jennifer E Stevens-Lapsley Journal: Phys Ther Date: 2019-09-01
Authors: Lucienne A Reichardt; Jesse J Aarden; Rosanne van Seben; Marike van der Schaaf; Raoul H H Engelbert; Martin van der Esch; Jos W R Twisk; Jos A Bosch; Bianca M Buurman Journal: Age Ageing Date: 2020-08-24 Impact factor: 10.668
Authors: Eric J Lenze; Emily Lenard; Marghuretta Bland; Peggy Barco; J Philip Miller; Michael Yingling; Catherine E Lang; Nancy Morrow-Howell; Carolyn M Baum; Ellen F Binder; Thomas L Rodebaugh Journal: JAMA Netw Open Date: 2019-07-03
Authors: Iñaki Echeverria; Maria Amasene; Miriam Urquiza; Idoia Labayen; Pilar Anaut; Ana Rodriguez-Larrad; Jon Irazusta; Ariadna Besga Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2020-01-20 Impact factor: 3.390