A group-based exercise and behavioural maintenance intervention for adults over 65 years with mobility limitations: the REACT RCT

A. Stathi, J. Withall, C. Greaves, J. Thompson, G. Taylor, A. Medina-Lara, C. Green, T. Snowsill, H. Johansen-Berg, J. Bilzon, S. Gray, Rosina Cross, M. Western, J. D. Koning, P. Ladlow, Jessica C Bollen, Sarah J Moorlock, J. Guralnik, W. Rejeski, M. Hillsdon, K. Fox
{"title":"A group-based exercise and behavioural maintenance intervention for adults over 65 years with mobility limitations: the REACT RCT","authors":"A. Stathi, J. Withall, C. Greaves, J. Thompson, G. Taylor, A. Medina-Lara, C. Green, T. Snowsill, H. Johansen-Berg, J. Bilzon, S. Gray, Rosina Cross, M. Western, J. D. Koning, P. Ladlow, Jessica C Bollen, Sarah J Moorlock, J. Guralnik, W. Rejeski, M. Hillsdon, K. Fox","doi":"10.3310/mqbw6832","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\n \n Mobility limitation in older age reduces quality of life, generates substantial health- and social-care costs, and increases mortality.\n \n \n \n The REtirement in ACTion (REACT) trial aimed to establish whether or not a community-based active ageing intervention could prevent decline in physical functioning in older adults already at increased risk of mobility limitation.\n \n \n \n A multicentre, pragmatic, two-arm, parallel-group randomised controlled trial with parallel process and health economic evaluations.\n \n \n \n Urban and semi-rural locations across three sites in England.\n \n \n \n Physically frail or pre-frail older adults (aged ≥ 65 years; Short Physical Performance Battery score of 4–9). Recruitment was primarily via 35 primary care practices.\n \n \n \n Participants were randomly assigned to receive brief advice (three healthy ageing education sessions) or a 12-month, group-based, multimodal exercise and behavioural maintenance programme delivered in fitness and community centres. Randomisation was stratified by site and used a minimisation algorithm to balance age, sex and Short Physical Performance Battery score. Data collection and analyses were blinded.\n \n \n \n The primary outcome was change in lower limb physical function (Short Physical Performance Battery score) at 24 months, analysed using an intention-to-treat analysis. The economic evaluation adopted the NHS and Personal Social Services perspective.\n \n \n \n Between June 2016 and October 2017, 777 participants (mean age 77.6 years, standard deviation 6.8 years; 66% female; mean Short Physical Performance Battery score 7.37, standard deviation 1.56) were randomised to the intervention arm (n = 410) or the control arm (n = 367). Data collection was completed in October 2019. Primary outcome data at 24 months were provided by 628 (80.8%) participants. At the 24-month follow-up, the Short Physical Performance Battery score was significantly greater in the intervention arm (mean 8.08, standard deviation 2.87) than in the control arm (mean 7.59, standard deviation 2.61), with an adjusted mean difference of 0.49 (95% confidence interval 0.06 to 0.92). The difference in lower limb function between intervention and control participants was clinically meaningful at both 12 and 24 months. Self-reported physical activity significantly increased in the intervention arm compared with the control arm, but this change was not observed in device-based physical activity data collected during the trial. One adverse event was related to the intervention. Attrition rates were low (19% at 24 months) and adherence was high. Engagement with the REACT intervention was associated with positive changes in exercise competence, relatedness and enjoyment and perceived physical, social and mental well-being benefits. The intervention plus usual care was cost-effective compared with care alone over the 2 years of REACT; the price year was 2019. In the base-case scenario, the intervention saved £103 per participant, with a quality-adjusted life-year gain of 0.04 (95% confidence interval 0.006 to 0.074) within the 2-year trial window. Lifetime horizon modelling estimated that further cost savings and quality-adjusted life-year gains were accrued up to 15 years post randomisation.\n \n \n \n A relatively low-resource, 1-year multimodal exercise and behavioural maintenance intervention can help older adults to retain physical functioning over a 24-month period. The results indicate that the well-established trajectory of declining physical functioning in older age is modifiable.\n \n \n \n Participants were not blinded to study arm allocation. However, the primary outcome was independently assessed by blinded data collectors. The secondary outcome analyses were exploratory, with no adjustment for multiple testing, and should be interpreted accordingly.\n \n \n \n Following refinements guided by the process evaluation findings, the REACT intervention is suitable for large-scale implementation. Further research will optimise implementation of REACT at scale.\n \n \n \n This trial is registered as ISRCTN45627165.\n \n \n \n This project was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Public Health Research programme and will be published in full in Public Health Research; Vol. 10, No. 14. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.\n","PeriodicalId":32306,"journal":{"name":"Public Health Research","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Public Health Research","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3310/mqbw6832","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

Mobility limitation in older age reduces quality of life, generates substantial health- and social-care costs, and increases mortality. The REtirement in ACTion (REACT) trial aimed to establish whether or not a community-based active ageing intervention could prevent decline in physical functioning in older adults already at increased risk of mobility limitation. A multicentre, pragmatic, two-arm, parallel-group randomised controlled trial with parallel process and health economic evaluations. Urban and semi-rural locations across three sites in England. Physically frail or pre-frail older adults (aged ≥ 65 years; Short Physical Performance Battery score of 4–9). Recruitment was primarily via 35 primary care practices. Participants were randomly assigned to receive brief advice (three healthy ageing education sessions) or a 12-month, group-based, multimodal exercise and behavioural maintenance programme delivered in fitness and community centres. Randomisation was stratified by site and used a minimisation algorithm to balance age, sex and Short Physical Performance Battery score. Data collection and analyses were blinded. The primary outcome was change in lower limb physical function (Short Physical Performance Battery score) at 24 months, analysed using an intention-to-treat analysis. The economic evaluation adopted the NHS and Personal Social Services perspective. Between June 2016 and October 2017, 777 participants (mean age 77.6 years, standard deviation 6.8 years; 66% female; mean Short Physical Performance Battery score 7.37, standard deviation 1.56) were randomised to the intervention arm (n = 410) or the control arm (n = 367). Data collection was completed in October 2019. Primary outcome data at 24 months were provided by 628 (80.8%) participants. At the 24-month follow-up, the Short Physical Performance Battery score was significantly greater in the intervention arm (mean 8.08, standard deviation 2.87) than in the control arm (mean 7.59, standard deviation 2.61), with an adjusted mean difference of 0.49 (95% confidence interval 0.06 to 0.92). The difference in lower limb function between intervention and control participants was clinically meaningful at both 12 and 24 months. Self-reported physical activity significantly increased in the intervention arm compared with the control arm, but this change was not observed in device-based physical activity data collected during the trial. One adverse event was related to the intervention. Attrition rates were low (19% at 24 months) and adherence was high. Engagement with the REACT intervention was associated with positive changes in exercise competence, relatedness and enjoyment and perceived physical, social and mental well-being benefits. The intervention plus usual care was cost-effective compared with care alone over the 2 years of REACT; the price year was 2019. In the base-case scenario, the intervention saved £103 per participant, with a quality-adjusted life-year gain of 0.04 (95% confidence interval 0.006 to 0.074) within the 2-year trial window. Lifetime horizon modelling estimated that further cost savings and quality-adjusted life-year gains were accrued up to 15 years post randomisation. A relatively low-resource, 1-year multimodal exercise and behavioural maintenance intervention can help older adults to retain physical functioning over a 24-month period. The results indicate that the well-established trajectory of declining physical functioning in older age is modifiable. Participants were not blinded to study arm allocation. However, the primary outcome was independently assessed by blinded data collectors. The secondary outcome analyses were exploratory, with no adjustment for multiple testing, and should be interpreted accordingly. Following refinements guided by the process evaluation findings, the REACT intervention is suitable for large-scale implementation. Further research will optimise implementation of REACT at scale. This trial is registered as ISRCTN45627165. This project was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Public Health Research programme and will be published in full in Public Health Research; Vol. 10, No. 14. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
一项针对65岁以上行动受限成年人的基于群体的锻炼和行为维持干预:REACT随机对照试验
老年人的行动限制降低了生活质量,产生了大量的健康和社会护理成本,并增加了死亡率。行动中的再疲劳(REACT)试验旨在确定基于社区的积极老龄化干预是否可以防止行动受限风险增加的老年人身体功能下降。一项多中心、务实、两臂、平行组的随机对照试验,具有平行过程和健康经济评估。英格兰三个地区的城市和半农村地区。身体虚弱或前期虚弱的老年人(年龄≥ 65岁;短物理性能电池得分为4-9)。招聘主要通过35家初级保健机构进行。参与者被随机分配接受简短的建议(三次健康老龄化教育)或在健身和社区中心提供的为期12个月的基于小组的多模式锻炼和行为维持计划。随机分组按地点分层,并使用最小化算法来平衡年龄、性别和短期身体表现电池得分。数据收集和分析是盲目的。主要结果是24个月时下肢身体功能的变化(短期身体表现电池评分),使用意向治疗分析进行分析。经济评估采用了国民保健服务和个人社会服务的观点。在2016年6月至2017年10月期间,777名参与者(平均年龄77.6岁,标准差6.8岁;66%为女性;平均短期体能测试得分7.37,标准差1.56)被随机分配到干预组(n = 410)或控制臂(n = 367)。数据收集工作于2019年10月完成。628名(80.8%)参与者提供了24个月时的主要结果数据。在24个月的随访中,干预组的短期身体性能电池得分(平均值8.08,标准偏差2.87)显著高于对照组(平均值7.59,标准偏差2.61),调整后的平均差异为0.49(95%置信区间0.06-0.92)。干预和对照参与者之间的下肢功能差异在12个月和24个月时都具有临床意义。与对照组相比,干预组的自我报告体力活动显著增加,但在试验期间收集的基于设备的体力活动数据中没有观察到这种变化。一个不良事件与干预有关。损耗率低(24个月时为19%),依从性高。参与REACT干预与运动能力、相关性和乐趣以及感知的身体、社会和心理健康益处的积极变化有关。在REACT的2年中,与单独护理相比,干预加常规护理具有成本效益;价格年为2019年。在基本情况下,干预为每位参与者节省了103英镑,在2年的试验窗口内,质量调整后的生命年增加了0.04(95%置信区间0.006至0.074)。寿命期建模估计,在随机化后的15年内,可以进一步节省成本和质量调整后的寿命年收益。资源相对较低的1年多模式运动和行为维持干预可以帮助老年人在24个月内保持身体功能。研究结果表明,老年人身体机能下降的既定轨迹是可以改变的。参与者没有对研究臂的分配视而不见。然而,主要结果是由盲法数据采集者独立评估的。次要结果分析是探索性的,没有对多次测试进行调整,应进行相应的解释。在过程评估结果的指导下进行改进后,REACT干预适合大规模实施。进一步的研究将优化REACT的大规模实施。本试验注册号为ISRCTN45627165。该项目由国家卫生与保健研究所公共卫生研究计划资助,并将在《公共卫生研究》上全文发表;第10卷第14期。有关更多项目信息,请访问NIHR期刊图书馆网站。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
11
审稿时长
46 weeks
期刊最新文献
Langerhans Cell Histiocytosis of the Nose and Maxilla: A Rare Presentation. Behavioural intervention to reduce sexually transmitted infections in people aged 16–24 years in the UK: the safetxt RCT A group-based exercise and behavioural maintenance intervention for adults over 65 years with mobility limitations: the REACT RCT Feasibility of a theory-based intervention to reduce sedentary behaviour among contact centre staff: the SUH stepped-wedge cluster RCT A multicomponent structured health behaviour intervention to improve physical activity in long-distance HGV drivers: the SHIFT cluster RCT
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1