Next Article in Journal
Facing COVID-19 Pandemic in a Tertiary Hospital in Milan: Prevalence of Burnout in Nursing Staff Working in Sub-Intensive Care Units
Next Article in Special Issue
Acceptability and Preliminary Results of Technology-Assisted Balance Training in Parkinson’s Disease
Previous Article in Journal
Task Monitoring and Working Memory as Executive Components Predictive of General and Specific Academic Achievements in 6–9-Year-Old Children
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
IJERPH
Volume 18
Issue 13
10.3390/ijerph18136682
ijerph-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Physical Activity Level Following Resistance Training in Community-Dwelling Older Adults Receiving Home Care: Results from a Cluster-Randomized Controlled Trial

by
Hilde Bremseth Bårdstu
1,2,*,
Vidar Andersen
1,
Marius Steiro Fimland
2,3,
Lene Aasdahl
3,4,
Hilde Lohne-Seiler
5 and
Atle Hole Saeterbakken
1
1
Department of Sport, Food and Natural Sciences, Faculty of Education, Arts and Sports, Western Norway University of Applied Sciences, 6851 Sogndal, Norway
2
Department of Neuromedicine and Movement Science, Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, Norwegian University of Science and Technology, 7030 Trondheim, Norway
3
Unicare Helsefort Rehabilitation Centre, 7112 Hasselvika, Norway
4
Department of Public Health and Nursing, Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, Norwegian University of Science and Technology, 7030 Trondheim, Norway
5
Department of Sport Science and Physical Education, Faculty of Health and Sport Science, University of Agder, 4604 Kristiansand, Norway
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2021, 18(13), 6682; https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18136682
Submission received: 27 April 2021 / Revised: 10 June 2021 / Accepted: 16 June 2021 / Published: 22 June 2021
(This article belongs to the Special Issue The Benefits of Physical Activity and Exercise in Motor and Cognitive Functions in Older Adults)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Older adults’ physical activity (PA) is low. We examined whether eight months of resistance training increased PA level in community-dwelling older adults receiving home care. A two-armed cluster-randomized trial using parallel groups was conducted. The included participants were >70 years and received home care. The resistance training group performed resistance training using body weight, elastic bands, and water canes twice per week for eight months. The control group was informed about the national PA guidelines and received motivational talks. The ActiGraph GT3X+ accelerometer was used to estimate PA. Outcomes included total PA (counts per minute), sedentary behavior (min/day), light PA (min/day), moderate-to-vigorous PA (min/day), and steps (mean/day). Between-group differences were analyzed using multilevel linear mixed models. Twelve clusters were randomized to either resistance training (7 clusters, 60 participants) or the control group (5 clusters, 44 participants). A total of 101 participants (median age 86.0 (interquartile range 80–90) years) had valid accelerometer data and were included in the analysis. There were no statistically significant between-group differences for any of the PA outcomes after four or eight months. This study offers no evidence of increased PA level following resistance training in older adults with home care.

1. Introduction

Physical Activity (PA) is important for successful ageing [1], reducing the risk of several non-communicable diseases [2,3] and all-cause mortality [4]. In Norway, only three out of ten community-dwelling older adults above 65 years achieved the recommended 150 min/week of moderate-to-vigorous-PA (MVPA) [5], decreasing to 5.6% in individuals above 80 years [6]. Low PA levels are related to reduced physical function and independence [3,7]; thus, maintaining and/or increasing PA levels into old age is important.
With increasing age, muscle strength, physical function (e.g., ability to rise from a chair and walking), and PA levels gradually decline [3]. Many older adults experience this as a vicious cycle; poor muscle strength is related to impaired physical function [3,8] and low PA levels [9], and impaired physical function is related to low PA [7,10]. For example, there is an association between muscle strength and walking speed [8], and walking is found to contribute greatly to older adults’ daily PA [11,12]. While the benefits of resistance training on muscle strength and physical function in older adults are well established [3,13], the impact on PA levels is unclear [14,15,16,17,18]. Studies reporting no change in PA levels following resistance training [14,16,17,18] have failed to improve muscle strength and/or physical function. In contrast, in one study including institutionalized older adults where both leg strength and physical function improved, PA levels were found to increase [15]. Whether resistance training programs that improve muscle strength and physical function lead to a concurrent increase in PA levels should be more thoroughly investigated. Furthermore, time spent in sedentary behavior (SB) and light PA (LPA) have received much attention over the last decade due to their association with physical health and well-being in older adults [19,20]. Despite this, we are only aware of one study that has investigated whether engaging in resistance training is effective for reducing time spent in SB and increasing LPA, and the intervention was for a short duration (10 weeks) and the sample small [16].
The World Health Organization emphasizes the need for tailored resistance training programs that can be performed in older adults’ key-settings, such as at home or in care centers [21]. Resistance training programs utilizing low-cost equipment (e.g., body weight, elastic bands) hold great potential, even for the oldest old (>80 years) [16,18]. These programs might overcome older adults’ barriers, such as affordability and lack of availability [22], as training can be performed everywhere. Moreover, they facilitate the inclusion of functional movements and exercises that replicate older adults’ daily activity patterns. Therefore, such resistance training programs, which aim to strengthen weakened muscles and improve physical function, could potentially increase PA, making movement easier.
We recently demonstrated that eight months of resistance training improved leg muscle strength and physical function in community-dwelling older adults receiving home care [23]. If the PA level increases as a natural consequence of improved leg strength and physical function, i.e., by making movement easier, resistance training can offer a wider range of benefits than previously established. The present study reports secondary outcomes on whether PA levels increased in older adults performing resistance training as compared to a control group receiving PA counselling. It was hypothesized that PA levels would increase more in the resistance training group compared to the control group.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Trial Design

The present paper used data from the Independent Self-Reliant Active Elderly (ISRAE) study, a two-armed, open-label, parallel group cluster-randomized controlled trial (RCT) performed in three Norwegian municipalities (Sogndal, Luster, and Leikanger) from August 2016 to June 2019. The intervention was for a period of eight months, and compared a resistance training group (RTG) to a control group (CG) receiving PA counselling. After the end of the intervention, we followed the participants for two years. The primary outcome of ISRAE is the ability to live independently and be self-reliant at home at the end of the two-year follow-up. We have previously reported the intervention effect on the secondary outcomes physical function and muscle strength [23]; thus, the method sections will partly overlap. This paper reports the effect of the intervention on PA levels four and eight months after study inclusion (secondary outcomes).
The study was evaluated by the Regional Committee for Medical and Health Research Ethics South East and the Norwegian Centre for Research Data (Bergen, Norway) (2016/51 and 49361/s/AGH, respectively) and was conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki and Norwegian laws and regulations. The study was registered in the ISRCTN registry (1067873, retrospectively registered). The results are presented according to the CONSORT statement extension to cluster-randomized trials [24]. Participants received written and oral information about the trial before signing a written informed consent form.

2.2. Participants

Participants were identified through the health care services in the three municipalities. Inclusion criteria were (i) age > 70 years, (ii) community-dwelling, and (iii) receiving home care due to medical and/or functional disabilities. Exclusion criteria were serious cognitive impairments (e.g., dementia, Alzheimer’s disease), diagnoses/conditions affecting testing or training, or contraindications for training from a medical doctor. In addition, we included seven participants below 70 years (median age 67 (range 63–69) years), who otherwise met the inclusion and exclusion criteria. This was to increase the sample size, and a revision was made to the initial eligibility criteria.

2.3. Intevention

The RTG performed two exercise sessions a week during the eight months intervention, which lasted from the end of September 2006 to the end of May 2017. Details about the resistance training program have been published previously [23]. Briefly, training sessions were supervised by trained exercise instructors and lasted for 30–45 min. The resistance training program utilized elastic bands (ROPES a/s, Aasgardstrand, Norway), body weight, and water canes, which are considered low-cost and easily available equipment. Exercises included rowing, squats, chest press, knee extension, biceps curl, shoulder press, and up-and-go (i.e., participant standing up from a chair, walking 3 m and turning around a cone, walking back and sitting back down). The first five weeks after baseline testing served as an introductory phase focusing on correct execution of the exercises at a submaximal intensity. Thereafter, we increased the volume and intensity progressively according to recommendations [25], and exercises were to be performed to fatigue (i.e., unable to perform additional repetitions with the correct technique). The intensity was individually tailored with chairs and water canes and by changing the elastic bands’ tension and thickness. The concentric phase was performed with high intentional velocity, while the eccentric phase was performed with slow, controlled intensity. Furthermore, the participants were urged to maintain their normal, habitual activity levels. Attendance was defined as the percentage of sessions met out of the total number of sessions.
Participants in CG received PA counselling in accordance with the national guidelines [26] and also received an educational brochure from the Ministry of Health and Care Services. Furthermore, every sixth week, they were visited or contacted by one of the researchers or research assistants. These conversations served to remind participants about the national PA guidelines and to motivate them to stay active.

2.4. Physical Activity Outcomes

The ActiGraph GT3X+ triaxial accelerometer (ActiGraph, LLC, Pensacola, FL, USA) was used to assess PA level, at participant level and at baseline after four and eight months. Participants were asked to wear the accelerometer in a belt over the right hip for at least 14 consecutive days and only to remove it when in contact with water or while sleeping. The accelerometer was initialized, and data were downloaded using ActiLife v.6.11 (ActiGraph, LLC, Pensacola, FL, USA). The sampling rate was 30 Hz, and data were analyzed in 10 s epochs. Vector Magnitude (VM) was used for analyses, and the ActiGraph low frequency extension (LFE) filter was applied. The LFE filter sets a lower frequency threshold for detecting accelerations, capturing slower movements often seen in older adults [27]. Non-wear time was defined as at least 90 consecutive min of zero counts, allowing for a 2 min interval of non-zero counts if accompanied by 30 min of consecutive zero up- or downstream [28]. The first day of wearing the accelerometer was excluded due to the risk of reactivity [29]. Files with at least 10 h of data for at least 4 days were considered valid [30]. Data between midnight and 6:00 a.m. were excluded.
Outcomes were total PA (TPA, counts per minute (cpm)), SB (min/day), LPA (min/day), MVPA (min/day), and steps (steps/day). The intensity thresholds were 0–199 cpm for SB [31], 200–1923 cpm for LPA [31,32], and ≥1924 cpm for MVPA [32] as suggested for older adults using VM. The number of steps was registered using the embedded pedometer function in GT3X+.

2.5. Randomization and Blinding

Participants were randomly allocated based on their geographical residency, i.e., participants living nearby belonged to the same cluster. Cluster randomization was chosen as it minimizes the risk of contamination and increases adherence. Twelve clusters (5–16 participants) were identified and allocated to RTG or CG. Clusters were randomized using a ratio of 3:2. The project leader conducted the randomization using the following procedure: (i) a number (1–16) was assigned to each cluster and clusters with ≥10 participants were weighted with two numbers; (ii) 60% of the participants (i.e., seven clusters) were allocated to RTG using a random numbers table; and (iii) the remaining participants (i.e., five clusters) were allocated to CG.
Due to practical concerns, we did not blind the researchers or research assistants. Furthermore, the nature of the intervention made it impossible to blind the participants and exercise instructors.

2.6. Statistical Analysis

The intention-to-treat principle was used to analyze the outcomes. Between-group effects were evaluated using multilevel linear mixed models. The baseline level of the outcome was generated by combining the baseline levels of the two groups [33]. Participant-id and cluster were entered as random effects, taking the dependency of repeated measures and cluster randomization into account. We included an interaction for group and time (baseline, four, and eight months). Normality was evaluated by visually inspecting the residuals of the outcomes. The outcomes for the groups at baseline after four and eight months were predicted using the estimates from the analyses.
Per-protocol analyses, including participants in RTG with more than 60% attendance, were performed. In addition, we performed some sensitivity analyses. First, we excluded participants under the age of 70 years, based on the initial eligibility criteria. Second, the combined baseline was removed, and we adjusted for the baseline value of the outcome (adjusted model 1). Lastly, as the main analyses were not adjusted for covariates, we conducted sensitivity analyses adjusting for accelerometer wear time, age, and BMI (adjusted model 2) to assess the robustness of our results.
Descriptive data are presented as mean and standard deviation (SD) or median and 25–75 percentiles (interquartile range, IQR). Results from the analyses are presented as estimated means and at 95% confidence intervals (CI). We calculated the intra-cluster correlation coefficients (ICC) as the between-cluster variation divided by total variation [34]. Statistical significance was set to a p-value of <0.05. STATA 15 (StataCorp. 2017. Stata Statistical Software: Release 15. College Station, TX, USA: StataCorp LLC) was used for analyses.

3. Results

In total, 123 older adults meeting the inclusion criteria were invited to the study. Of those, 104 met for baseline testing and were split into 12 clusters. Furthermore, we included six participants after randomization. These participants were allocated to the correct cluster based on their geographical residency. Three participants in wheelchairs who could not carry out testing were excluded from analyses. Figure 1 illustrates the flow of participants throughout the study. We did not experience any adverse events.

3.1. Participant Characteristics

Table 1 presents baseline characteristics. The median age was 86 (IQR 80–90) years, and 60% were women. Assistive walking devices were used by 60%. Average attendance to resistance training was 51%, and 44% dropped out (RTG n = 31, CG n = 16). Six participants had no valid data at any measurement point and were not included in analyses. Participants without valid data were older (median 90 (IQR 87–90) years), and a higher number (67%) were male compared to those included in the analyses (median age 86 (IQR 80–90) years and 39% male). This left 101 participants divided into 12 clusters to be included in the analyses.
At baseline, mean accelerometer wear time was 809 (SD 74) min/day, and the median number of valid days was 13 (IQR 11–14) (Table 1).

3.2. Physical Activity Level

There were no significant between-group differences for any of the PA outcomes from baseline to four and eight months (p = 0.371–0.880) (Figure 2A–E). Estimated mean TPA at baseline was 261 cpm (95% CI 217–306). Mean difference between RTG and CG was 5 cpm (95% CI−28–37) after four months and 20 cpm (95% CI−16–37) after eight months (Figure 2A). Estimated mean SB at baseline was 616 min/day (95% CI 593–639), and the mean difference between groups was 8 min/day (95% CI−38–22) after four months and 9 min/day (95% CI−42–23) after eight months, with CG spending slightly more time in SB compared to RTG (Figure 2B). For LPA, the estimated mean at baseline was 161 min/day (95% CI 144–178), and the mean difference between groups was−1 min/day (95% CI−21–18) in favor of CG after four months, and 8 min/day (95% CI−13–29) in favor of RTG after eight months (Figure 2C). For MVPA, the estimated mean at baseline was 34 min/day (95% CI 24–43), and the mean difference between groups was 1 min/day (95% CI−5–7) and 3 min/day (95% CI−3–10) after four and eight months, respectively (Figure 2D). The estimated mean steps per day were 6105 (95% CI 5247–6964). After four and eight months, the mean difference between the groups was−250 steps/day (95% CI−987–485) at four months and−90 steps/day (95% CI−896–716) at eight months, both in favor of CG (Figure 2E).

3.3. Per Protocol Analyses

There were no changes in the conclusions following the per-protocol analyses including participants in RTG with more than 60% attendance (Supplementary Table S1). Similarly, no changes in the conclusions were found following the other sensitivity analyses (Supplementary Tables S2–S4).

4. Discussion

There were no differences in TPA, SB, LPA, MVPA, or steps between participants in RTG receiving resistance training and participants in CG receiving PA counselling after four or eight months.
Our findings support a meta-analysis reporting that exercise interventions alone are not enough to stimulate older adults to increase their PA levels [35]. In a previous RCT, Oesen and co-workers [18] showed that elastic band resistance training had no effect on the number of steps taken by older adults living in a retirement facility (>80 years). Likewise, in a previous study from our lab [16], no change in PA levels was found in older adults receiving home care (>80 years) following 10 weeks of resistance training. However, these studies did not report improved leg strength [16,18] or physical function [16], which we expect is necessary to increase PA levels. In contrast, Fiatarone and colleagues [15] reported an effect of resistance training on PA levels, as well as leg strength and physical function, when compared to various leisure activities in institutionalized older adults (mean age 87.1 years). In the same study, leg strength and physical function improved. The contrasting findings may relate to differences in study design, training protocol (e.g., volume, frequency, equipment), populations included (e.g., different age and health status), and assessment of PA.
Over the last decade, the importance of SB and LPA for older adults’ health has been highlighted. Higher LPA and less time spent in SB are associated with several important health outcomes [19,20] and better physical function [10] in older adults. Consequently, the World Health Organization 2020 guidelines on PA and SB recommend both decreasing SB and increasing PA [36]. We found no effect of the resistance training program on SB or LPA. To our knowledge, only one previous study has included SB and LPA, and this study reported similar results [16].
Several factors could explain why we could not confirm our hypothesis. Although we designed the resistance training program according to recommendations [25], the attendance at the exercise sessions was low, with a mean of one session per week (51% attendance). Studies show that training programs of higher volume and frequency are more effective for older adults [37,38], which could explain our findings. Fiatarone and co-workers [15] reported large strength gains (26–216%) in institutionalized older adults, and our 16–18% increase in strength [23] might not have been sufficient to increase PA. Another possible explanation is that the resistance training program was not specific enough and that including strength exercises with a functional movement pattern do not necessarily transfer into increased PA. Although our aim was to investigate whether resistance training alone could be effective in increasing PA, combining resistance training with specific elements targeting PA, such as walking [39], balance training, and/or behavioral strategies (e.g., goal setting and education) [40,41] could be more effective. For example, walking interventions have been successful in increasing steps and muscle strength in older adults with osteoarthritis [39] and behavioral strategies [40] have been proposed as essential for changing PA). Furthermore, it has been suggested that older adults may reduce their spontaneous PA during the day to save energy for an upcoming training session or substitute spontaneous PA with inactivity due to muscle soreness and fatigue [42]. Lastly, participants’ characteristics (e.g., old age, home care, use of walking aids) could explain the lack of training effect considering that increasing PA level is less likely in those who are physically limited compared to healthy older adults [40].
Although using accelerometers to estimate PA are recommended, the lack of consensus on analytical approaches limits the comparability between studies [43]. Estimated MVPA was higher in our sample compared to previous estimates for older adults [5,6,44]. We used age-relative intensity thresholds instead of absolute thresholds to estimate MVPA. Relative thresholds are found to estimate more time in MVPA [45,46] and increase step count [46], which could explain our high PA levels. Furthermore, we estimated PA over 14 days, while the previously mentioned study reporting resistance training to be quite effective used 72 h [15]. Whether 72 h is adequate to capture an actual change in behavior, and not a spontaneous change, can be questioned [47].
Most of the PA estimates were at their lowest after four months. This was not surprising as the four months assessment was conducted in January and February, and the Norwegian winter is cold and snowy. Thus, this is most likely explained by seasonal variation in weather conditions [48].
The 14 days of objective PA measurement and age-appropriate intensity thresholds strengthens this study. Furthermore, we included estimates of SB and LPA, and showing the entire intensity spectrum of PA strengthens our study. Notwithstanding, some limitations should be acknowledged. First, dropout was high (44%), but this was not surprising due to the participants’ health and high age. We used multilevel mixed models which handles missing data by using all available data [33]. However, this relies on the assumption of missing at random and bias might be present as a result of the loss to follow up. We cannot rule out that some of the participants that dropped out without reason withdrew for reasons related to the training. Second, we included six participants after randomization, which could bias group allocation. Third, we did not estimate energy expenditure, making it impossible to conclude whether RTG used less of their maximal capacity during exercising and daily life activities (improved their stamina) after the intervention. Lastly, the sample size is small for a cluster RCT, and the study was not blinded. Thus, due to study limitations, these findings should be interpreted with some caution.

5. Conclusions

In conclusion, eight months of resistance training compared to PA counselling did not change TPA, SB, LPA, MVPA, or steps per day in community-dwelling older adults receiving home care. This study indicates that a resistance training program, utilizing low-cost, easily available equipment does not alone increase PA levels in this group of older adults as compared to receiving PA counselling. We recommend that future studies combine resistance training with walking, balance training, and/or behavioral strategies to affect muscle strength, physical function, and PA level in older adults. Furthermore, future studies should continue to investigate the entire intensity spectrum, from SB to MVPA, in older adults.

Supplementary Materials

The following are available online at https://www.mdpi.com/article/10.3390/ijerph18136682/s1, Supplementary Table S1—Per-protocol analysis of participants with ≥60% attendance to training. Supplementary Table S2—Sensitivity analysis including participants above 70 years. Supplementary Table S3—Sensitivity analysis with adjustment for baseline value of the outcome and without combined baseline. Supplementary Table S4—Sensitivity analysis with adjustment for body mass index, age, and accelerometer wear time.

Author Contributions

H.B.B. carried out the main writing of the paper and planned and conducted the data analyses. A.H.S., V.A., M.S.F., and H.L.-S. were in charge of planning the study, and A.H.S. and V.A. oversaw the study and data collection. A.H.S., V.A., M.S.F., H.L.-S., and L.A. reviewed the manuscript, giving valuable input on revisions. L.A. contributed to the preparation of the statistical analysis. The final manuscript was read and approved by all authors, and all authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

The study was funded by the Norwegian Regional Research Council of Western Norway (RFV, project number 257071).

Institutional Review Board Statement

This study involved human participants and all procedures were performed in agreement with The Regional Committee for Medical and Health Research Ethics (2016/51), the Norwegian Centre for Research Data (49361/s/AGH), and with the Declaration of Helsinki’s ethical standards.

Informed Consent Statement

Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study.

Data Availability Statement

The datasets used and/or analyzed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

Acknowledgments

We would like to acknowledge all research assistants and exercise instructors who contributed to the accomplishment of the ISRAE study. Furthermore, the authors acknowledge all study participants and those involved from the three municipalities: Sogndal, Luster, and Leikanger. Lastly, we thank Øyvind Salvesen for his appreciated input on the statistical analyses.

Conflicts of Interest

There are no competing interest to report.

References

  1. Dogra, S.; Stathokostas, L. Sedentary behavior and physical activity are independent predictors of successful aging in middle-aged and older adults. J. Aging Res. 2012, 2012, 190654. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  2. Lee, I.M.; Shiroma, E.J.; Lobelo, F.; Puska, P.; Blair, S.N.; Katzmarzyk, P.T. Effect of physical inactivity on major non-communicable diseases worldwide: An analysis of burden of disease and life expectancy. Lancet (Lond. UK) 2012, 380, 219–229. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  3. Chodzko-Zajko, W.J.; Proctor, D.N.; Fiatarone Singh, M.A.; Minson, C.T.; Nigg, C.R.; Salem, G.J.; Skinner, J.S.; American College of Sports Medicine. American College of Sports Medicine position stand. Exercise and physical activity for older adults. Med. Sci. Sports Exerc. 2009, 41, 1510–1530. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Ekelund, U.; Tarp, J.; Steene-Johannessen, J.; Hansen, B.H.; Jefferis, B.; Fagerland, M.W.; Whincup, P.; Diaz, K.M.; Hooker, S.; Chernofsky, A.; et al. Dose-response associations between accelerometry measured physical activity and sedentary time and all cause mortality: Systematic review and harmonised meta-analysis. BMJ (Clin. Res. Ed.) 2019, 366, l4570. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  5. Hansen, B.H.; Kolle, E.; Steene-Johannessen, J.; Dalene, K.E.; Ekelund, U.; Anderssen, S.A. Monitoring population levels of physical activity and sedentary time in Norway across the lifespan. Scand. J. Med. Sci. Sports 2019, 29, 105–112. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  6. Lohne-Seiler, H.; Hansen, B.H.; Kolle, E.; Anderssen, S.A. Accelerometer-determined physical activity and self-reported health in a population of older adults (65–85 years): A cross-sectional study. BMC Public Health 2014, 14, 284. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  7. Edholm, P.; Nilsson, A.; Kadi, F. Physical function in older adults: Impacts of past and present physical activity behaviors. Scand. J. Med. Sci. Sports 2019, 29, 415–421. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Hayashida, I.; Tanimoto, Y.; Takahashi, Y.; Kusabiraki, T.; Tamaki, J. Correlation between muscle strength and muscle mass, and their association with walking speed, in community-dwelling elderly Japanese individuals. PLoS ONE 2014, 9, e111810. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  9. Cooper, A.; Lamb, M.; Sharp, S.J.; Simmons, R.K.; Griffin, S.J. Bidirectional association between physical activity and muscular strength in older adults: Results from the UK Biobank study. Int. J. Epidemiol. 2017, 46, 141–148. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  10. Sardinha, L.B.; Santos, D.A.; Silva, A.M.; Baptista, F.; Owen, N. Breaking-up sedentary time is associated with physical function in older adults. J. Gerontol. A Biol. Sci. Med. Sci. 2015, 70, 119–124. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  11. Reitlo, L.S.; Sandbakk, S.B.; Viken, H.; Aspvik, N.P.; Ingebrigtsen, J.E.; Tan, X.; Wisløff, U.; Stensvold, D. Exercise patterns in older adults instructed to follow moderate-or high-intensity exercise protocol-the generation 100 study. BMC Geriatr. 2018, 18, 208. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Valenti, G.; Bonomi, A.G.; Westerterp, K.R. Walking as a contributor to physical activity in healthy older adults: 2 week longitudinal study using accelerometry and the doubly labeled water method. JMIR Mhealth Uhealth 2016, 4, e56. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  13. Liu, C.J.; Latham, N.K. Progressive resistance strength training for improving physical function in older adults. Cochrane Database Syst. Rev. 2009, 2009, CD002759. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  14. Chin, A.P.M.J.; van Poppel, M.N.; van Mechelen, W. Effects of resistance and functional-skills training on habitual activity and constipation among older adults living in long-term care facilities: A randomized controlled trial. BMC Geriatr. 2006, 6, 9. [Google Scholar]
  15. Fiatarone, M.A.; O’Neill, E.F.; Ryan, N.D.; Clements, K.M.; Solares, G.R.; Nelson, M.E.; Roberts, S.B.; Kehayias, J.J.; Lipsitz, L.A.; Evans, W.J. Exercise training and nutritional supplementation for physical frailty in very elderly people. N. Engl. J. Med. 1994, 330, 1769–1775. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  16. Saeterbakken, A.H.; Bardstu, H.B.; Brudeseth, A.; Andersen, V. Effects of strength training on muscle properties, physical function, and physical activity among frail older people: A pilot study. J. Aging Res. 2018, 2018, 8916274. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Strandberg, E.; Edholm, P.; Ponsot, E.; Wahlin-Larsson, B.; Hellmen, E.; Nilsson, A.; Engfeldt, P.; Cederholm, T.; Riserus, U.; Kadi, F. Influence of combined resistance training and healthy diet on muscle mass in healthy elderly women: A randomized controlled trial. J. Appl. Physiol. (1985) 2015, 119, 918–925. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  18. Oesen, S.; Halper, B.; Hofmann, M.; Jandrasits, W.; Franzke, B.; Strasser, E.M.; Graf, A.; Tschan, H.; Bachl, N.; Quittan, M.; et al. Effects of elastic band resistance training and nutritional supplementation on physical performance of institutionalised elderly--A randomized controlled trial. Exp. Gerontol. 2015, 72, 99–108. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Buman, M.P.; Hekler, E.B.; Haskell, W.L.; Pruitt, L.; Conway, T.L.; Cain, K.L.; Sallis, J.F.; Saelens, B.; Frank, L.D.; King, A.C. Objective light-intensity physical activity associations with rated health in older adults. Am. J. Epidemiol. 2010, 172, 1155–1165. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  20. de Rezende, L.F.; Rey-López, J.P.; Matsudo, V.K.; do Carmo Luiz, O. Sedentary behavior and health outcomes among older adults: A systematic review. BMC Public Health 2014, 14, 333. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  21. World Health Organization. Global Action Plan on Physical Activity 2018–2030: More Active People for a Healthier World; World Health Organization: Geneva, Switzerland, 2018. [Google Scholar]
  22. Franco, M.R.; Tong, A.; Howard, K.; Sherrington, C.; Ferreira, P.H.; Pinto, R.Z.; Ferreira, M.L. Older people’s perspectives on participation in physical activity: A systematic review and thematic synthesis of qualitative literature. Br. J. Sports Med. 2015, 49, 1268–1276. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  23. Bårdstu, H.B.; Andersen, V.; Fimland, M.S.; Aasdahl, L.; Raastad, T.; Cumming, K.T.; Sæterbakken, A.H. Effectiveness of a resistance training program on physical function, muscle strength, and body composition in community-dwelling older adults receiving home care: A cluster-randomized controlled trial. Eur. Rev. Aging Phys. Act. 2020, 17, 11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  24. Campbell, M.K.; Piaggio, G.; Elbourne, D.R.; Altman, D.G. Consort 2010 statement: Extension to cluster randomised trials. BMJ (Clin. Res. Ed.) 2012, 345, e5661. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  25. Fragala, M.S.; Cadore, E.L.; Dorgo, S.; Izquierdo, M.; Kraemer, W.J.; Peterson, M.D.; Ryan, E.D. Resistance training for older adults: Position statement from the national strength and conditioning association. J. Strength Cond. Res. 2019, 33, 2019–2052. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  26. Helsedirektoratet. Anbefalinger om Kosthold, Ernæring og Fysisk Aktivitet; Contract No.: IS-2170; Helsedirektoratet: Oslo, Norway, 2014. [Google Scholar]
  27. ActiGraph, S. The Low-Frequency Filter Explained. 2012. Available online: https://actigraph.desk.com/customer/en/portal/articles/2515505-low-frequency-extension-explained (accessed on 15 October 2019).
  28. Choi, L.; Ward, S.C.; Schnelle, J.F.; Buchowski, M.S. Assessment of wear/nonwear time classification algorithms for triaxial accelerometer. Med. Sci. Sports Exerc. 2012, 44, 2009–2016. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  29. Motl, R.W.; McAuley, E.; Dlugonski, D. Reactivity in baseline accelerometer data from a physical activity behavioral intervention. Health Psychol. 2012, 31, 172–175. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Troiano, R.P.; Berrigan, D.; Dodd, K.W.; Masse, L.C.; Tilert, T.; McDowell, M. Physical activity in the United States measured by accelerometer. Med. Sci. Sports Exerc. 2008, 40, 181–188. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Aguilar-Farías, N.; Brown, W.J.; Peeters, G.M. ActiGraph GT3X+ cut-points for identifying sedentary behaviour in older adults in free-living environments. J. Sci. Med. Sport 2014, 17, 293–299. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  32. Barnett, A.; van den Hoek, D.; Barnett, D.; Cerin, E. Measuring moderate-intensity walking in older adults using the ActiGraph accelerometer. BMC Geriatr. 2016, 16, 211. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  33. Fitzmaurice, G.M.; Laird, N.M.; Ware, J.H. Applied Longitudinal Analysis, 2nd ed.; Wiley: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2011; p. 752. [Google Scholar]
  34. Coupland, C.; DiGuiseppi, C. The design and use of cluster randomised controlled trials in evaluating injury prevention interventions: Part 2. Design effect, sample size calculations and methods for analysis. Inj. Prev. 2010, 16, 132–136. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  35. de Vries, N.M.; van Ravensberg, C.D.; Hobbelen, J.S.; Olde Rikkert, M.G.; Staal, J.B.; Nijhuis-van der Sanden, M.W. Effects of physical exercise therapy on mobility, physical functioning, physical activity and quality of life in community-dwelling older adults with impaired mobility, physical disability and/or multi-morbidity: A meta-analysis. Ageing Res. Rev. 2012, 11, 136–149. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  36. Bull, F.C.; Al-Ansari, S.S.; Biddle, S.; Borodulin, K.; Buman, M.P.; Cardon, G.; Carty, C.; Chaput, J.-P.; Chastin, S.; Chou, R.; et al. World Health Organization 2020 guidelines on physical activity and sedentary behaviour. Br. J. Sports Med. 2020, 54, 1451–1462. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. dos Santos, L.; Ribeiro, A.S.; Nunes, J.P.; Tomeleri, C.M.; Nabuco, H.C.G.; Nascimento, M.A.; Junior, P.S.; Fernandes, R.R.; Campa, F.; Toselli, S.; et al. Effects of pyramid resistance-training system with different repetition zones on cardiovascular risk factors in older women: A randomized controlled trial. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2020, 17, 6115. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Toselli, S.; Badicu, G.; Bragonzoni, L.; Spiga, F.; Mazzuca, P.; Campa, F. Comparison of the effect of different resistance training frequencies on phase angle and handgrip strength in obese women: A randomized controlled trial. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2020, 17, 1163. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  39. Talbot, L.A.; Gaines, J.M.; Huynh, T.N.; Metter, E.J. A home-based pedometer-driven walking program to increase physical activity in older adults with osteoarthritis of the knee: A preliminary study. J. Am. Geriatr. Soc. 2003, 51, 387–392. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. van der Bij, A.K.; Laurant, M.G.; Wensing, M. Effectiveness of physical activity interventions for older adults: A review. Am. J. Prev. Med. 2002, 22, 120–133. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Harris, T.; Kerry, S.M.; Limb, E.S.; Victor, C.R.; Iliffe, S.; Ussher, M.; Whincup, P.H.; Ekelund, U.; Fox-Rushby, J.; Furness, C.; et al. Effect of a primary care walking intervention with and without nurse support on physical activity levels in 45- to 75-year-olds: The pedometer and consultation evaluation (PACE-UP) cluster randomised clinical trial. PLoS Med. 2017, 14, e1002210. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Meijer, E.P.; Westerterp, K.R.; Verstappen, F.T. Effect of exercise training on total daily physical activity in elderly humans. Eur. J. Appl. Physiol. Occup. Physiol. 1999, 80, 16–21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Migueles, J.H.; Cadenas-Sanchez, C.; Ekelund, U.; Delisle Nystrom, C.; Mora-Gonzalez, J.; Lof, M.; Labayen, I.; Ruiz, J.R.; Ortega, F.B. Accelerometer data collection and processing criteria to assess physical activity and other outcomes: A systematic review and practical considerations. Sports Med. 2017, 47, 1821–1845. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Davis, M.G.; Fox, K.R.; Hillsdon, M.; Sharp, D.J.; Coulson, J.C.; Thompson, J.L. Objectively measured physical activity in a diverse sample of older urban UK adults. Med. Sci. Sports Exerc. 2011, 43, 647–654. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Aspvik, N.P.; Viken, H.; Zisko, N.; Ingebrigtsen, J.E.; Wisloff, U.; Stensvold, D. Are older adults physically active enough-A matter of assessment method? The generation 100 study. PLoS ONE 2016, 11, e0167012. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Feito, Y.; Hornbuckle, L.M.; Reid, L.A.; Crouter, S.E. Effect of ActiGraph’s low frequency extension for estimating steps and physical activity intensity. PLoS ONE 2017, 12, e0188242. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  47. Sasaki, J.E.; Júnior, J.H.; Meneguci, J.; Tribess, S.; Júnior, M.M.; Neto, A.S.; Júnior, J.S.V. Number of days required for reliably estimating physical activity and sedentary behaviour from accelerometer data in older adults. J. Sports Sci. 2018, 36, 1572–1577. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Aspvik, N.P.; Viken, H.; Ingebrigtsen, J.E.; Zisko, N.; Mehus, I.; Wisløff, U.; Stensvold, D. Do weather changes influence physical activity level among older adults? The Generation 100 study. PLoS ONE 2018, 13, e0199463. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Ijerph 18 06682 g001 550
Figure 1. CONSORT (Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trails) flow chart of participant recruitment.
Figure 1. CONSORT (Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trails) flow chart of participant recruitment.
Ijerph 18 06682 g001
Ijerph 18 06682 g002 550
Figure 2. Changes in physical activity from baseline to four and eight months. Values are estimated means and 95% confidence intervals. RTG, resistance training group; CG, control group; Total PA, total physical activity; cpm, counts per minute; SB, sedentary behavior; LPA, light physical activity; MVPA, moderate-to-vigorous physical activity. (A) total physical activity, (TPA, cpm); (B) Sedentary behavior (SB, min/day); (C) Light physical activity (LPA, min/day); (D) Moderate-to-vigorous physical activity (MVPA, min/day); (E) Steps (steps/day).
Figure 2. Changes in physical activity from baseline to four and eight months. Values are estimated means and 95% confidence intervals. RTG, resistance training group; CG, control group; Total PA, total physical activity; cpm, counts per minute; SB, sedentary behavior; LPA, light physical activity; MVPA, moderate-to-vigorous physical activity. (A) total physical activity, (TPA, cpm); (B) Sedentary behavior (SB, min/day); (C) Light physical activity (LPA, min/day); (D) Moderate-to-vigorous physical activity (MVPA, min/day); (E) Steps (steps/day).
Ijerph 18 06682 g002
Table
Table 1. Baseline characteristics of the participants.
Table 1. Baseline characteristics of the participants.
CharacteristicsRTG
(n = 64)		CG
(n = 43)		ICC
Age (years), median (IQR)87 (80–90)86 (80–90)
Women, n (%)42 (66)22 (51)
Use of walking devices, n (%) *33 (52)31 (72)
Height (cm), mean (SD)160 (9)164 (9)
Weight (kg), median (IQR)66.5 (55.5–79.5) a70.4 (62.4–80.2) b
Body Mass Index (kg/m2), median (IQR)25.1 (23.6–28.1) a27.0 (23.7–30.3) b
Wear time (min/day), mean (SD) §805 (77) c817 (70) d
Number of valid days, median (IQR) §13 (12–14) c13 (11–14) d
TPA (cpm), mean (SD)278 (165) c224 (138) d0.16
SB (min/day), mean (SD)600 (100) c643 (85) c0.10
LPA (min/day), mean (SD)170 (73) c145 (64) c0.10
MVPA (min/day), mean (SD)35 (35) c29 (30) d0.16
Steps (steps/day), mean (SD)6623 (3258) c5223 (2623) d0.18
RTG, resistance training group; CG, control group; ICC, intra cluster correlation; IQR, interquartile range; SD, standard deviation; TPA, total physical activity; cpm, counts per minute; SB, sedentary behavior; LPA, light physical activity; MVPA, moderate-to-vigorous physical activity. * Includes walker or crutches, one participant in CG with missing data. § Minutes of wear and valid days of accelerometer wear. a n = 63 b n = 40 c n = 60 d n = 39.
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Bårdstu, H.B.; Andersen, V.; Fimland, M.S.; Aasdahl, L.; Lohne-Seiler, H.; Saeterbakken, A.H. Physical Activity Level Following Resistance Training in Community-Dwelling Older Adults Receiving Home Care: Results from a Cluster-Randomized Controlled Trial. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2021, 18, 6682. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18136682

AMA Style

Bårdstu HB, Andersen V, Fimland MS, Aasdahl L, Lohne-Seiler H, Saeterbakken AH. Physical Activity Level Following Resistance Training in Community-Dwelling Older Adults Receiving Home Care: Results from a Cluster-Randomized Controlled Trial. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. 2021; 18(13):6682. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18136682

Chicago/Turabian Style

Bårdstu, Hilde Bremseth, Vidar Andersen, Marius Steiro Fimland, Lene Aasdahl, Hilde Lohne-Seiler, and Atle Hole Saeterbakken. 2021. "Physical Activity Level Following Resistance Training in Community-Dwelling Older Adults Receiving Home Care: Results from a Cluster-Randomized Controlled Trial" International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 18, no. 13: 6682. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18136682

APA Style

Bårdstu, H. B., Andersen, V., Fimland, M. S., Aasdahl, L., Lohne-Seiler, H., & Saeterbakken, A. H. (2021). Physical Activity Level Following Resistance Training in Community-Dwelling Older Adults Receiving Home Care: Results from a Cluster-Randomized Controlled Trial. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 18(13), 6682. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18136682

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop