Feasibility trial evaluation of a peer volunteering active aging intervention: ACE (Active, Connected, Engaged)

© The Author(s) 2019. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of The Gerontological Society of America. BACKGROUND: ACE (Active, Connected, Engaged) is a theory-informed, pragmatic intervention using peer volunteering support to promote active ageing in socially disengaged, inactive older adults. This study aimed to establish ACE's feasibility and acceptability. METHODS: Fifty-four older adults were recruited as either peer volunteers (activators; n = 15) or participants (ACEs; n = 39). Participants were randomized to one-to-one support from an activator (ACEs-Intervention [ACEs-I]) or a waiting-list control group (ACEs-Control [ACEs-C]). Activators supported ACEs-I to get out more and engage with local activities. Objectively measured physical activity (PA), lower limb function, and number of out of house activities were assessed at baseline and post-intervention. A mixed-methods process evaluation assessed changes in confidence to get out and about, social support, autonomy, competence, and relatedness. RESULTS: Eighty-two percent of ACEs (mean age = 73.7 years [SD 7.3]) and all activators completed assessments at both baseline and post-intervention (6 months). ACEs-I reported more out of house activities (M [SD] = 6.34 [4.15]). ACEs-I increased physical function post-intervention (M [SD] = 9.8 [2.3]). ACEs-I reported improved well-being and vitality and increased confidence to get out and about, confidence in the face of specific barriers, knowledge of local initiatives, and perceived social support post-intervention. Activators, although sufficiently active at baseline, increased their PA further. ACE was well-accepted and easy to deliver. CONCLUSIONS: ACE is an acceptable and feasible intervention for helping socially disengaged older people to get out and about more, improve their confidence, and engage more with their community

Participant and Public Involvement in Refining a Peer-Volunteering Active Aging Intervention: Project ACE (Active, Connected, Engaged)

© The Author(s) 2016. Background Evidence for the health benefits of a physically active lifestyle among older adults is strong, yet only a small proportion of older people meet physical activity recommendations. A synthesis of evidence identified "best bet" approaches, and this study sought guidance from end-user representatives and stakeholders to refine one of these, a peer-volunteering active aging intervention. Methods Focus groups with 28 older adults and four professional volunteer managers were conducted. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 9 older volunteers. Framework analysis was used to gauge participants' views on the ACE intervention. Results Motives for engaging in community groups and activities were almost entirely social. Barriers to participation were lack of someone to attend with, lack of confidence, fear of exclusion or "cliquiness" in established groups, bad weather, transport issues, inaccessibility of activities, ambivalence, and older adults being "set in their ways". Motives for volunteering included "something to do," avoiding loneliness, the need to feel needed, enjoyment, and altruism. Challenges included negative events between volunteer and recipient of volunteering support, childcare commitments, and high volunteering workload. Conclusion Peer-volunteering approaches have great potential for promotion of active aging. The systematic multistakeholder approach adopted in this study led to important refinements of the original ACE intervention. The findings provide guidance for active aging community initiatives highlighting the importance of effective recruitment strategies and of tackling major barriers including lack of motivation, confidence, and readiness to change; transport issues; security concerns and cost; activity availability; and lack of social support

A community-based physical activity intervention to prevent mobility-related disability for retired older people (REtirement in ACTion (REACT)): Study protocol for a randomised controlled trial

© 2018 The Author(s). Background: The REtirement in ACTion (REACT) study is a multi-centre, pragmatic, two-arm, parallel-group randomised controlled trial (RCT) with an internal pilot phase. It aims to test the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of a community, group-based physical activity intervention for reducing, or reversing, the progression of functional limitations in older people who are at high risk of mobility-related disability. Methods/design: A sample of 768 sedentary, community-dwelling, older people aged 65 years and over with functional limitations, but who are still ambulatory (scores between 4 and 9 out of 12 in the Short Physical Performance Battery test (SPPB)) will be randomised to receive either the REACT intervention, delivered over a period of 12 months by trained facilitators, or a minimal control intervention. The REACT study incorporates comprehensive process and economic evaluation and a nested sub-study which will test the hypothesis that the REACT intervention will slow the rate of brain atrophy and of decline in cognitive function assessed using magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). Outcome data will be collected at baseline, 6, 12 and 24 months for the main study, with MRI sub-study data collected at baseline, 6 and 12 months. The primary outcome analysis (SPPB score at 24 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: REACT represents the first large-scale, pragmatic, community-based trial in the UK to target the non-disabled but high-risk segment of the older population with an intervention to reduce mobility-related disability. A programme that can successfully engage this population in sufficient activity to improve strength, aerobic capacity, coordination and balance would have a major impact on sustaining health and independence. REACT is also the first study of its kind to conduct a full economic and comprehensive process evaluation alongside the RCT. If effective and cost-effective, the REACT intervention has strong potential to be implemented widely in the UK and elsewhere

Cost-effectiveness of a physical activity and behaviour maintenance programme on functional mobility decline in older adults:an economic evaluation of the REACT (Retirement in Action) trial

BACKGROUND: Mobility limitations in older populations have a substantial impact on health outcomes, quality of life, and social care costs. The Retirement in Action (REACT) randomised controlled trial assessed a 12-month community-based group physical activity and behaviour maintenance intervention to help prevent decline in physical functioning in older adults at increased risk of mobility limitation. We aimed to do an economic evaluation of the REACT trial to investigate whether the intervention is cost-effective. METHODS: In this health economic evaluation, we did cost-effectiveness and cost-utility analyses of the REACT programme versus standard care on the basis of resource use, primary outcome, and health-related quality-of-life data measured in the REACT trial. We also developed a decision analytic Markov model that forecasts the mobility of recipients beyond the 24-month follow-up of the trial and translated this into future costs and potential benefit to health-related quality of life using the National Health Service and Personal Social Services perspective. Participants completed questionnaire booklets at baseline, and at 6, 12, and 24 months after randomisation, which included a resource use questionnaire and the EQ-5D-5L and 36-item short-form survey (SF-36) health-related quality-of-life instruments. The cost of delivering the intervention was estimated by identifying key resources, such as REACT session leader time, time of an individual to coordinate the programme, and venue hire. EQ-5D-5L and SF-36 responses were converted to preference-based utility values, which were used to estimate quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) over the 24-month trial follow-up using the area-under-the-curve method. We used generalised linear models to examine the effect of the REACT programme on costs and QALYs and adjust for baseline covariates. Costs and QALYs beyond 12 months were discounted at 3·5% per year. This is a pre-planned analysis of the REACT trial; the trial itself is registered with ISRCTN (ISRCTN45627165). FINDINGS: The 12-month REACT programme was estimated to cost £622 per recipient to deliver. The most substantial cost components are the REACT session leader time (£309 per participant), venue hire (£109), and the REACT coordinator time (£80). The base-case analysis of the trial-based economic evaluation showed that reductions in health and social care usage due to the REACT programme could offset the REACT delivery costs (£3943 in the intervention group vs £4043 in the control group; difference: –£103 [95% CI −£695 to £489]) with a health benefit of 0·04 QALYs (0·009–0·071; 1·354 QALYs in the intervention group vs 1·314 QALYs in the control group) within the 24-month timeframe of the trial. INTERPRETATION: The REACT programme could be considered a cost-effective approach for improving the health-related quality of life of older adults at risk of mobility limitations. FUNDING: National Institute for Health Research Public Health Research Programme