Siobhan Kathleen McMahon1, Jean F Wyman2, Michael J Belyea3, Nelma Shearer3, Eric B Hekler4, Julie Fleury3. 1. School of Nursing, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, Minnesota skmcmaho@umn.edu. 2. School of Nursing, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, Minnesota. 3. College of Nursing Health and Innovation, Arizona State University, Phoenix, Arizona. 4. School of Nutrition and Health Promotion, Arizona State University, Phoenix, Arizona.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To assess the feasibility of a new intervention, Ready~Steady, in terms of demand, acceptability, implementation, and limited efficacy. DESIGN: Randomized controlled trial; repeated measures. SETTING:Two rural communities in Itasca County, Minnesota. SUBJECTS:Thirty participants were randomized to an intervention (n = 16) or attention-control (n = 14) group. INTERVENTION: Ready~Steady combined two components: (1) motivational (motivational support, social network support, empowering education), and (2) fall-reducing physical activities (PAs; guidance to practice leg-strengthening, balance, and flexibility activities and walking). MEASURES: Acceptability questionnaire and Indices of Procedural Consistency (investigator developed), Community Health Activity Model Program for Seniors Questionnaire (confirmed with accelerometry), Short Physical Performance Battery, Perceived Environmental Support Scale, Social Support for Exercise Questionnaire, Goal Attainment Scale, Index of Readiness, and Index of Self-Regulation. ANALYSIS: Descriptive statistics and a marginal approach to repeated-measures analysis of variance, using mixed-model procedures. RESULTS:Attrition was 7% and mean attendance was 7.2 of 8 sessions, participants evaluated Ready~Steady as acceptable, and implementation fidelity was good. The intervention group improved significantly more than the attention-control group in PA behavior, F1,27 = 11.92, p = .002; fall risk (functional balance and strength), F1,27 = 14.89, p = .001; support for exercise from friends, F1,27 = 11.44, p = .002; and self-regulation, F1,26 = 38.82, p < .005. CONCLUSION: The Ready~Steady intervention was feasible as evidenced by low attrition and good attendance and implementation, as well as positive effects on targeted outcomes and theoretical mechanisms of change.
RCT Entities:
PURPOSE: To assess the feasibility of a new intervention, Ready~Steady, in terms of demand, acceptability, implementation, and limited efficacy. DESIGN: Randomized controlled trial; repeated measures. SETTING: Two rural communities in Itasca County, Minnesota. SUBJECTS: Thirty participants were randomized to an intervention (n = 16) or attention-control (n = 14) group. INTERVENTION: Ready~Steady combined two components: (1) motivational (motivational support, social network support, empowering education), and (2) fall-reducing physical activities (PAs; guidance to practice leg-strengthening, balance, and flexibility activities and walking). MEASURES: Acceptability questionnaire and Indices of Procedural Consistency (investigator developed), Community Health Activity Model Program for Seniors Questionnaire (confirmed with accelerometry), Short Physical Performance Battery, Perceived Environmental Support Scale, Social Support for Exercise Questionnaire, Goal Attainment Scale, Index of Readiness, and Index of Self-Regulation. ANALYSIS: Descriptive statistics and a marginal approach to repeated-measures analysis of variance, using mixed-model procedures. RESULTS: Attrition was 7% and mean attendance was 7.2 of 8 sessions, participants evaluated Ready~Steady as acceptable, and implementation fidelity was good. The intervention group improved significantly more than the attention-control group in PA behavior, F1,27 = 11.92, p = .002; fall risk (functional balance and strength), F1,27 = 14.89, p = .001; support for exercise from friends, F1,27 = 11.44, p = .002; and self-regulation, F1,26 = 38.82, p < .005. CONCLUSION: The Ready~Steady intervention was feasible as evidenced by low attrition and good attendance and implementation, as well as positive effects on targeted outcomes and theoretical mechanisms of change.
Authors: Linda M Collins; Timothy B Baker; Robin J Mermelstein; Megan E Piper; Douglas E Jorenby; Stevens S Smith; Bruce A Christiansen; Tanya R Schlam; Jessica W Cook; Michael C Fiore Journal: Ann Behav Med Date: 2011-04
Authors: Lesley D Gillespie; M Clare Robertson; William J Gillespie; Catherine Sherrington; Simon Gates; Lindy M Clemson; Sarah E Lamb Journal: Cochrane Database Syst Rev Date: 2012-09-12
Authors: Siobhan K McMahon; Beth Lewis; J Michael Oakes; Jean F Wyman; Weihua Guan; Alexander J Rothman Journal: West J Nurs Res Date: 2019-08-30 Impact factor: 1.967
Authors: David B Reuben; Priscilla Gazarian; Neil Alexander; Katy Araujo; Dorothy Baker; Jonathan F Bean; Chad Boult; Peter Charpentier; Pamela Duncan; Nancy Latham; Rosanne M Leipzig; Lisa M Quintiliani; Thomas Storer; Siobhan McMahon Journal: J Am Geriatr Soc Date: 2017-10-17 Impact factor: 5.562
Authors: Barbara Resnick; Elizabeth Galik; Marie Boltz; Erin Vigne; Sarah Holmes; Steven Fix; Shijun Zhu Journal: West J Nurs Res Date: 2018-03-21 Impact factor: 1.967
Authors: Siobhan K McMahon; Beth A Lewis; Weihua Guan; Jean F Wyman; Alexander J Rothman Journal: Contemp Clin Trials Date: 2020-12-05 Impact factor: 2.226
Authors: Samantha Fien; Corey Linton; Jules S Mitchell; Daniel P Wadsworth; Helen Szabo; Christopher D Askew; Mia A Schaumberg Journal: Aging Clin Exp Res Date: 2022-02-12 Impact factor: 3.636