Keenan A Ramsey1, Paula Loveland2, Anna G M Rojer1, Linda Denehy3, Rose Goonan2, Celia Marston2, Jacqueline E Kay2, Jacinta Brenan2, Marijke C Trappenburg4, Wen Kwang Lim2, Esmee M Reijnierse5, Carel G M Meskers6, Andrea B Maier7. 1. Department of Human Movement Sciences, @AgeAmsterdam, Faculty of Behavioural and Movement Sciences, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam Movement Sciences, Amsterdam, the Netherlands. 2. Department of Medicine and Aged Care, @AgeMelbourne, The Royal Melbourne Hospital, Parkville, Victoria, Australia. 3. Department of Physiotherapy, Melbourne School of Health Sciences, The University of Melbourne, Victoria, Australia. 4. Department of Internal Medicine, Amstelland Hospital, Amstelveen, the Netherlands; Department of Internal Medicine, Amsterdam UMC, VU University Medical Center, Amsterdam, the Netherlands. 5. Department of Medicine and Aged Care, @AgeMelbourne, The Royal Melbourne Hospital, Parkville, Victoria, Australia; Department of Rehabilitation Medicine, Amsterdam UMC, VU University Medical Center, Amsterdam Movement Sciences, Amsterdam, the Netherlands. 6. Department of Human Movement Sciences, @AgeAmsterdam, Faculty of Behavioural and Movement Sciences, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam Movement Sciences, Amsterdam, the Netherlands; Department of Rehabilitation Medicine, Amsterdam UMC, VU University Medical Center, Amsterdam Movement Sciences, Amsterdam, the Netherlands. 7. Department of Human Movement Sciences, @AgeAmsterdam, Faculty of Behavioural and Movement Sciences, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam Movement Sciences, Amsterdam, the Netherlands; Department of Medicine and Aged Care, @AgeMelbourne, The Royal Melbourne Hospital, Parkville, Victoria, Australia; Healthy Longevity Translational Research Program, Yong Loo Lin School of Medicine, National University of Singapore, Singapore, Centre for Healthy Longevity, National University Health System, Singapore. Electronic address: a.b.maier@vu.nl.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to describe objectively measured physical activity and sedentary behavior in geriatric rehabilitation patients receiving care in the home-based compared to the hospital-based setting. DESIGN: Observational matched cohort study. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: Home-based (patient's home) or hospital-based (ward) geriatric rehabilitation was delivered to inpatients within the REStORing health of acutely unwell adulTs (RESORT) observational, longitudinal cohort of the Royal Melbourne Hospital (Melbourne, Victoria, Australia). METHODS: Patients were asked to wear ActivPAL4 accelerometers for 1 week and were assessed by a comprehensive geriatric assessment at admission, discharge, and followed up after 3 months. Hospital-based patients were matched to home-based patients for sex and baseline physical function [Short Physical Performance Battery (SPPB), activities (instrumental) of daily living, and Clinical Frailty Scale]. Differences in patient characteristics and physical activity (total, standing and walking durations, number of steps and sit-to stand transitions) and sedentary behavior (total, sitting and lying durations) were assessed. RESULTS: A total of 159 patients were included: 18 home-based [mean age: 81.9 ± 8.6 years, 38.9% female, median (interquartile range [IQR]) SPPB: 7.0 (5.0-9.0)] and 141 hospital-based [mean age: 82.9 ± 7.8 years, 57.4% female, median (IQR) SPPB: 1.0 (0.0-4.0)] patients, of whom 18 were matched [mean age: 80.1 ± 7.4 years, 38.9% female, median (IQR) SPPB: 6.5 (4.8-10.0)]. Median physical activity measures were consistently higher in home-based patients compared to the total group of hospital-based patients. After matching, physical activity measures remained >2.4 times higher and were significantly different for all measures (total physical activity, standing and walking durations, and steps) except for sit-to-stand transitions. Sedentary behaviors were similar with home-based patients spending non-significantly more time sitting but significantly less time lying than hospital-based patients (matched and total). CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS: Home-based inpatients are more physically active than hospital-based inpatients independent of matching for sex and baseline physical function, which supports home-based geriatric rehabilitation.
OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to describe objectively measured physical activity and sedentary behavior in geriatric rehabilitation patients receiving care in the home-based compared to the hospital-based setting. DESIGN: Observational matched cohort study. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: Home-based (patient's home) or hospital-based (ward) geriatric rehabilitation was delivered to inpatients within the REStORing health of acutely unwell adulTs (RESORT) observational, longitudinal cohort of the Royal Melbourne Hospital (Melbourne, Victoria, Australia). METHODS: Patients were asked to wear ActivPAL4 accelerometers for 1 week and were assessed by a comprehensive geriatric assessment at admission, discharge, and followed up after 3 months. Hospital-based patients were matched to home-based patients for sex and baseline physical function [Short Physical Performance Battery (SPPB), activities (instrumental) of daily living, and Clinical Frailty Scale]. Differences in patient characteristics and physical activity (total, standing and walking durations, number of steps and sit-to stand transitions) and sedentary behavior (total, sitting and lying durations) were assessed. RESULTS: A total of 159 patients were included: 18 home-based [mean age: 81.9 ± 8.6 years, 38.9% female, median (interquartile range [IQR]) SPPB: 7.0 (5.0-9.0)] and 141 hospital-based [mean age: 82.9 ± 7.8 years, 57.4% female, median (IQR) SPPB: 1.0 (0.0-4.0)] patients, of whom 18 were matched [mean age: 80.1 ± 7.4 years, 38.9% female, median (IQR) SPPB: 6.5 (4.8-10.0)]. Median physical activity measures were consistently higher in home-based patients compared to the total group of hospital-based patients. After matching, physical activity measures remained >2.4 times higher and were significantly different for all measures (total physical activity, standing and walking durations, and steps) except for sit-to-stand transitions. Sedentary behaviors were similar with home-based patients spending non-significantly more time sitting but significantly less time lying than hospital-based patients (matched and total). CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS: Home-based inpatients are more physically active than hospital-based inpatients independent of matching for sex and baseline physical function, which supports home-based geriatric rehabilitation.
Authors: Paula M Loveland; Esmee M Reijnierse; Louis Island; Wen Kwang Lim; Andrea B Maier Journal: J Am Geriatr Soc Date: 2022-02-04 Impact factor: 7.538