Paul S Jansons1,2, Terry P Haines1,2, Lisa O'Brien2,3. 1. 1 Monash University, Physiotherapy Department, Victoria, Australia. 2. 2 Monash Health Allied Health Research Unit, Kingston Centre, Victoria, Australia. 3. 3 Monash University, Occupational Therapy Department, Victoria, Australia.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To determine which exercise adherence interventions are most effective for achieving ongoing exercise adherence in adults with chronic health conditions who had already completed a supervised short-term program. METHOD: Search of MEDLINE (Ovid Medline 1946 to April 8th, 2016), EMBASE (1980 to April 8th, 2016), CINAHL (1982-April 8th 2016) and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials was conducted. The chronic health conditions search terms as per the Chronic Disease and Participation in Work AIHW Report, 2008. Included were randomised (or quasi-randomised) trials and observational studies evaluating interventions that aimed to improve exercise adherence in adults with chronic health conditions that had completed a supervised exercise program. Random-effects meta-analyses and random-effects logistic meta-regression were used to examine relationships between exercise adherence strategy and adherence. RESULTS: Eleven studies were included with a total of 1231 participants with Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease, Diabetes, Cardiovascular disease or Osteoarthritis. Methods used for maintaining adherence were categorized post hoc as: centre based programs; home exercise programs with telephone follow-up; home exercise programs with no follow-up; and weaning programs that transitioned patients to an independent, off-site exercise program. There was no difference in the proportion of participants who were fully adherent to an exercise program 12 months between the centre-based follow-up (pooled proportion fully adherent=0.34) and telephone follow-up (pooled proportion fully adherent=0.30, difference p-value=0.75). CONCLUSION: Interventions such as centre-based exercise programs or home exercise programs (with or without telephone follow-up) do not differentially impact exercise adherence for people who have completed a short-term supervised program.
OBJECTIVE: To determine which exercise adherence interventions are most effective for achieving ongoing exercise adherence in adults with chronic health conditions who had already completed a supervised short-term program. METHOD: Search of MEDLINE (Ovid Medline 1946 to April 8th, 2016), EMBASE (1980 to April 8th, 2016), CINAHL (1982-April 8th 2016) and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials was conducted. The chronic health conditions search terms as per the Chronic Disease and Participation in Work AIHW Report, 2008. Included were randomised (or quasi-randomised) trials and observational studies evaluating interventions that aimed to improve exercise adherence in adults with chronic health conditions that had completed a supervised exercise program. Random-effects meta-analyses and random-effects logistic meta-regression were used to examine relationships between exercise adherence strategy and adherence. RESULTS: Eleven studies were included with a total of 1231 participants with Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease, Diabetes, Cardiovascular disease or Osteoarthritis. Methods used for maintaining adherence were categorized post hoc as: centre based programs; home exercise programs with telephone follow-up; home exercise programs with no follow-up; and weaning programs that transitioned patients to an independent, off-site exercise program. There was no difference in the proportion of participants who were fully adherent to an exercise program 12 months between the centre-based follow-up (pooled proportion fully adherent=0.34) and telephone follow-up (pooled proportion fully adherent=0.30, difference p-value=0.75). CONCLUSION: Interventions such as centre-based exercise programs or home exercise programs (with or without telephone follow-up) do not differentially impact exercise adherence for people who have completed a short-term supervised program.
Authors: M E Jung; S R Locke; J E Bourne; M R Beauchamp; T Lee; J Singer; M MacPherson; J Barry; C Jones; J P Little Journal: Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act Date: 2020-02-26 Impact factor: 6.457
Authors: Daniel Collado-Mateo; Ana Myriam Lavín-Pérez; Cecilia Peñacoba; Juan Del Coso; Marta Leyton-Román; Antonio Luque-Casado; Pablo Gasque; Miguel Ángel Fernández-Del-Olmo; Diana Amado-Alonso Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2021-02-19 Impact factor: 3.390
Authors: Louise C Burgess; Paul Taylor; Thomas W Wainwright; Shayan Bahadori; Ian D Swain Journal: Clin Med Insights Arthritis Musculoskelet Disord Date: 2021-06-27
Authors: Monica Busse; Lori Quinn; Cheney Drew; Mark Kelson; Rob Trubey; Kirsten McEwan; Carys Jones; Julia Townson; Helen Dawes; Rhiannon Tudor-Edwards; Anne Rosser; Kerenza Hood Journal: Phys Ther Date: 2017-06-01