Exercise instructors are not consistently implementing the strength component of the UK chief medical officers’ physical activity guidelines in their exercise prescription for older adults

Strength training recommendations have been embedded within the UK’s Chief Medical Officers’ physical activity guidelines since 2011. There is limited evidence that these recommendations are used by exercise instructors in the community to underpin strength training prescription in the older adult population. This study aimed to explore exercise instructors’ awareness and utilisation of the guidelines when prescribing strength training to older adults. Fifteen exercise instructors working with older adults in the UK participated in one online interview. A general inductive approach was conducted and thematic analysis allowed for major themes to be identified from the raw data. We found that most exercise instructors (n = 9), but not all (n = 6), were aware of the guidelines. Only one instructor (n = 1) had reportedly implemented the guidelines into their practice; other instructors reported that the guidelines were irrelevant. Instead, each of the instructors had their preferred sources of information that they relied on to underpin their exercise prescription, and each had their own interpretation of ‘evidence-based strength training.’ This individualised interpretation resulted in exceptionally varied prescription in the community and does not necessarily align with the progressive, evidence-based prescription known to build muscular strength. We suggest that (i) more detail on how to build muscular strength be embedded within the guidelines, (ii) a handbook on how to implement the guidelines be made available, (iii) theoretical and practical teaching materials and courses be updated, and/or (iv) a re-(education) of exercise instructors already in the field may be necessary to bring about a consistent, evidence-based strength prescription necessary for the best possible health and longevity outcomes for our ageing population

Exercise instructors in the UK are not using the physical activity guidelines to inform their strength prescription with older adults

Strength recommendations have been embedded within the UK’s Chief Medical Officers’ physical activity guidelines since 2011. There is limited evidence that these recommendations are used by exercise instructors in the community to underpin strength prescription in the older adult population. This study aimed to explore exercise instructors’ utilisation of the guidelines when prescribing strength training to older adults. Fifteen exercise instructors working with older adults in the UK participated in one online interview. A general inductive approach was conducted to allow for major themes to be identified from the raw data. We found that most exercise instructors, but not all, were familiar with the guidelines. Only one of 15 instructors had reportedly implemented the guidelines into their practice; other instructors reported that the guidelines were irrelevant. The interviewees each had their preferred sources of information that they relied on to underpin their prescription, and each had their own interpretation of ‘evidence-based strength training.’ This individualised interpretation resulted in exceptionally varied prescription in the community and does not necessarily align with the progressive, evidence-based prescription known to build muscular strength. We suggest that i) more details on how to build muscular strength within the guidelines, ii) a handbook on how to implement the guidelines, iii) an update to theoretical and practical teaching materials and courses, and/or iv) a re-(education) of exercise instructors already in the field may be necessary to bring about a consistent, evidence-based strength prescription that would be required for the best possible outcomes for our ageing population

Exploring the delivery of remote physiotherapy during the COVID-19 pandemic: UK wide service evaluation

IntroductionDuring the Coronavirus (Covid-19) pandemic, physiotherapists changed rapidly to working remotely. Research demonstrates the benefits of remote physiotherapy, but little is known about its implementation in practice.PurposeExplore the take-up and delivery of remote physiotherapy during the pandemic in the United Kingdom.MethodsSequential mixed methods evaluation with physiotherapists leading remote physiotherapy delivery. Two-stage approach included online survey (2020) and semi-structured interviews with documentary/data analysis (2021).ResultsThere were 1620 physiotherapists who completed the survey. The most used devices were telephone (n = 942,71.0%) and the AttendAnywhere platform (n = 511, 38.5%). Remote consultations were frequently used for initial assessment (n = 1105, 83%), screening/triage (n = 882, 67%), or to review, monitor, and progress treatment (n = 982–1004, 74%–76%). Qualitative survey responses reflected respondents’ response to COVID-19 and delivery of remote physiotherapy. Twelve remote physiotherapy leads were then purposively sampled across clinical areas. Three main themes emerged from interviews: response to Covid-19, delivery of remote physiotherapy, and future of remote physiotherapy.ConclusionRemote physiotherapy was safe, feasible, and acceptable for those who accessed it. There were patients for which it was deemed unsuitable across clinical areas. In practice, it should be combined with in-person consultation based on patients’ needs/preferences. Further research should explore post-pandemic maintenance of remote delivery

Can smartphone technology be used to support an effective home exercise intervention to prevent falls amongst community dwelling older adults?: the TOGETHER feasibility RCT study protocol

Introduction Falls have major implications for quality of life, independence and cost to the health service. Strength and balance training has been found to be effective in reducing the rate/risk of falls, as long as there is adequate fidelity to the evidence-based programme. Health services are often unable to deliver the evidence-based dose of exercise and older adults do not always sufficiently adhere to their programme to gain full outcomes. Smartphone technology based on behaviour-change theory has been used to support healthy lifestyles, but not falls prevention exercise. This feasibility trial will explore whether smartphone technology can support patients to better adhere to an evidence-based rehabilitation programme and test study procedures/outcome measures. Methods and analysis A two-arm, pragmatic feasibility randomised controlled trial will be conducted with health services in Manchester, UK. Seventy-two patients aged 50+years eligible for a falls rehabilitation exercise programme from two community services will receive: (1) standard service with a smartphone for outcome measurement only or (2) standard service plus a smartphone including the motivational smartphone app. The primary outcome is feasibility of the intervention, study design and procedures. The secondary outcome is to compare standard outcome measures for falls, function and adherence to instrumented versions collected using smartphone. Outcome measures collected include balance, function, falls, strength, fear of falling, health-related quality of life, resource use and adherence. Outcomes are measured at baseline, 3 and 6-month post-randomisation. Interviews/focus groups with health professionals and participants further explore feasibility of the technology and trial procedures. Primarily analyses will be descriptive. Ethics and dissemination The study protocol is approved by North West Greater Manchester East Research Ethics Committee (Rec ref:18/NW/0457, 9/07/2018). User groups and patient representatives were consulted to inform trial design, and are involved in study recruitment. Results will be reported at conferences and in peer-reviewed publications. A dissemination event will be held in Manchester to present the results of the trial. The protocol adheres to the recommended Standard Protocol Items: Recommendations for Interventional Trials (SPIRIT) checklist

Implementation of the StandingTall programme to prevent falls in older people:a process evaluation protocol

INTRODUCTION: One in three people aged 65 years and over fall each year. The health, economic and personal impact of falls will grow substantially in the coming years due to population ageing. Developing and implementing cost-effective strategies to prevent falls and mobility problems among older people is therefore an urgent public health challenge. StandingTall is a low-cost, unsupervised, home-based balance exercise programme delivered through a computer or tablet. StandingTall has a simple user-interface that incorporates physical and behavioural elements designed to promote compliance. A large randomised controlled trial in 503 community-dwelling older people has shown that StandingTall is safe, has high adherence rates and is effective in improving balance and reducing falls. The current project targets a major need for older people and will address the final steps needed to scale this innovative technology for widespread use by older people across Australia and internationally. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This project will endeavour to recruit 300 participants across three sites in Australia and 100 participants in the UK. The aim of the study is to evaluate the implementation of StandingTall into the community and health service settings in Australia and the UK. The nested process evaluation will use both quantitative and qualitative methods to explore uptake and acceptability of the StandingTall programme and associated resources. The primary outcome is participant adherence to the StandingTall programme over 6 months. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethical approval has been obtained from the South East Sydney Local Health District Human Research Ethics Committee (HREC reference 18/288) in Australia and the North West- Greater Manchester South Research Ethics Committee (IRAS ID: 268954) in the UK. Dissemination will be via publications, conferences, newsletter articles, social media, talks to clinicians and consumers and meetings with health departments/managers. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ACTRN12619001329156

A peer-volunteer led active ageing programme to prevent decline in physical function in older people at risk of mobility disability (Active, Connected, Engaged [ACE]): study protocol for a randomised controlled trial

Background: The Active Connected Engaged [ACE] study is a multi-centre, pragmatic, two-arm, parallel-group randomised controlled trial [RCT] with an internal pilot phase. The ACE study incorporates a multi-level mixed methods process evaluation including a systems mapping approach and an economic evaluation. ACE aims to test the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of a peer-volunteer led active ageing intervention designed to support older adults at risk of mobility disability to become more physically and socially active within their communities and to reduce or reverse, the progression of functional limitations associated with ageing. Methods/design: Community-dwelling, older adults aged 65 years and older (n = 515), at risk of mobility disability due to reduced lower limb physical functioning (Short Physical Performance Battery (SPPB) score of 4–9 inclusive) will be recruited. Participants will be randomised to receive either a minimal control intervention or ACE, a 6-month programme underpinned by behaviour change theory, whereby peer volunteers are paired with participants and offer them individually tailored support to engage them in local physical and social activities to improve lower limb mobility and increase their physical activity. Outcome data will be collected at baseline, 6, 12 and 18 months. The primary outcome analysis (difference in SPPB score at 18 months) will be undertaken blinded to group allocation. Primary comparative analyses will be on an intention-to-treat (ITT) basis with due emphasis placed on confidence intervals. Discussion: ACE is the largest, pragmatic, community-based randomised controlled trial in the UK to target this high-risk segment of the older population by mobilising community resources (peer volunteers). A programme that can successfully engage this population in sufficient activity to improve strength, coordination, balance and social connections would have a major impact on sustaining health and independence. ACE is also the first study of its kind to conduct a full economic and comprehensive process evaluation of this type of community-based intervention. If effective and cost-effective, the ACE intervention has strong potential to be implemented widely in the UK and elsewhere. Trial registration: ISRCTN, ISRCTN17660493. Registered on 30 September 2021. Trial Sponsor: University of Birmingham, Contact: Dr Birgit Whitman, Head of Research Governance and Integrity; Email: [email protected]. Protocol Version 5 22/07/22

Protocol for the PreventIT feasibility randomised controlled trial of a lifestyle-integrated exercise intervention in young older adults

Introduction The European population is rapidly ageing. In order to handle substantial future challenges in the healthcare system, we need to shift focus from treatment towards health promotion. The PreventIT project has adapted the Lifestyle-integrated Exercise (LiFE) programme and developed an intervention for healthy young older adults at risk of accelerated functional decline. The intervention targets balance, muscle strength and physical activity, and is delivered either via a smartphone application (enhanced LiFE, eLiFE) or by use of paper manuals (adapted LiFE, aLiFE). Methods and analysis The PreventIT study is a multicentre, three-armed feasibility randomised controlled trial, comparing eLiFE and aLiFE against a control group that receives international guidelines of physical activity. It is performed in three European cities in Norway, Germany, and The Netherlands. The primary objective is to assess the feasibility and usability of the interventions, and to assess changes in daily life function as measured by the Late-Life Function and Disability Instrument scale and a physical behaviour complexity metric. Participants are assessed at baseline, after the 6 months intervention period and at 1 year after randomisation. Men and women between 61 and 70 years of age are randomly drawn from regional registries and respondents screened for risk of functional decline to recruit and randomise 180 participants (60 participants per study arm). Ethics and dissemination Ethical approval was received at all three trial sites. Baseline results are intended to be published by late 2018, with final study findings expected in early 2019. Subgroup and further in-depth analyses will subsequently be published. Trial registration number NCT03065088; Pre-results

Promotion of physical activity interventions for community dwelling older adults: A systematic review of reviews

Objectives While there is strong evidence that regular participation in physical activity (PA) brings numerous health benefits to older adults, and interventions to effectively promote PA are being developed and tested, the characteristics and components of the most effective interventions remain unclear. This systematically conducted review of systematic reviews evaluated the effects and characteristics of PA promotion interventions aimed at community dwelling people over 50 years old. Methods Major databases were searched for reviews from January 1990 to May 2015. TIDieR guidelines aided data extraction and the ROBIS tool was used to assess the risk of bias. Primary outcomes were objective and self-reported levels of PA. Indicators of psychological wellbeing and participation rates were secondary outcomes. Results Of 1284 records identified, 19 reviews met inclusion criteria and eight included meta-analyses. Interventions typically incorporated behaviour change techniques (BCTs) and were delivered as face-to-face, remote, group, individual or as combined interventions. Despite their heterogeneity, interventions often resulted in sustained improvements in PA over the study period, typically at 12 months, and led to improvements in general wellbeing. However, ways to ensure effective maintenance beyond one year are unclear. Certain intervention components were more clearly associated with positive effects (e.g. tailoring promotion strategy with combination of cognitive and behavioural elements, low to moderate intensity activity recommended). We found no evidence that certain other intervention characteristics were superior in achieving positive outcomes (e.g. mode of delivery, setting, professional background of the intervention provider, type of PA recommended). Conclusion The evidence suggests that interventions to promote PA among older adults are generally effective but there is uncertainty around the most beneficial intervention components. There are indications that purely cognitive strategies and BCTs might be less suitable for older adults than motivators more meaningful to them, including social and environmental support, and enjoyment coming from being physically active. A whole system-oriented approach is required that is tailored to meet the needs of older adults and aligned with social, individual and environmental factors