Next Article in Journal
Stereotypes of Social Groups in Mainland China in Terms of Warmth and Competence: Evidence from a Large Undergraduate Sample
Previous Article in Journal
Body Physique, Body Composition, Physical Performance, Technical and Tactical Skills, Psychological Development, and Club Characteristics of Young Male Portuguese Soccer Players: The INEX Study
 
 
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 7
10.3390/ijerph18073561
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

The Comparisons of Physical Functional Performances between Older Adults with and without Regular Physical Activity in Two Different Living Settings

by
I-Fang Cheng
1,
Li-Chieh Kuo
2,
Yi-Jung Tsai
3,4 and
Fong-Chin Su
1,5,*
1
Department of Biomedical Engineering, National Cheng Kung University, Tainan 701, Taiwan
2
Department of Occupational Therapy, National Cheng Kung University, Tainan 701, Taiwan
3
Department of Medical Research, E-Da Hospital, Kaohsiung 824, Taiwan
4
Medical College, I-Shou University, Kaohsiung 840, Taiwan
5
Medical Device Innovation Center, National Cheng Kung University, Tainan 701, Taiwan
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2021, 18(7), 3561; https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18073561
Submission received: 18 February 2021 / Revised: 25 March 2021 / Accepted: 25 March 2021 / Published: 30 March 2021
(This article belongs to the Section Aging)
Browse Figures
Review Reports Versions Notes

Abstract

:
We compared the physical function performances of community-dwelling and day care center older adults with and without regular physical activity (PA). A total of 163 Taiwanese older adults living in rural communities participated. PA habits and physical functional performances were assessed. The participants were divided into community-dwelling (CD) and senior day care (DC) center groups that were further classified into regular physical activity (RPA) and non-physical activity (NPA) subgroups. Comparison took place between subgroups. In the CD group, only the grip strength, pinch strength, and box and blocks test scored significantly better for the participants with regular PA. Muscle strength, flexibility, and three items of functional ability of participants with regular PA were significantly better in the DC group. An active lifestyle contributes to a good old-age life. The effective amount of PA and the reduction of sedentary time should be advocated to prevent frailty and disability in older adults.

1. Introduction

Physical activity (PA) means body activity that is carried out by muscle requiring more energy than resting, while exercise (EX) means a planned, structured, repetitive, and intentional activity [1]. Regular PA is defined as habitual PA that is behaving in a regular manner. Regular PA and exercise play important roles in maintaining the quality of health in aging [2], because they could be efficient countermeasures for age-related muscle strength loss [3,4] and disability [5]. For the middle-aged population, regular exercise is effective to maintain muscle strength and physical performance and to prevent sarcopenia in older age [6,7]. The older adults with habitual PA can retain their strength more than the sedentary ones [8]. Older adults who have been habitually active for more than 10 years have lower bone loss and retain better balance than those have been consistently habitually inactive [9]. PA is beneficial for the prevention and the risk reduction of chronic diseases and mental setback among older adults [10,11,12]. The specific list includes all-cause mortality [13], cardiovascular disease [14], type 2 diabetes [15], cancers [16,17], dementia [18,19,20], and depression [21].
Previous studies have shown the positive effects of exercising on muscle strength, endurance [22], and reversing frailty in the elderly [23], and that regular training can improve the functional performance of the elderly [22,24] and, moreover, prevent falls [25,26,27]. According to the Global Health Observatory data [28], insufficient PA in adults in 2016 was 28%, globally. Physical inactivity is especially common in older adults with physical and mental decline. Despite the recommendation that healthy older adults engage in 150 min of moderate or 75 min of vigorous PA per week [29], over half of them fail to meet these guidelines. While inactive or frail older adults should engage in 100 min of moderate or 300 min of light PA per week, few of them achieve this in an assisted living environment [30]. Older adults having no regular PA or longer sitting times are at a higher risk of prefrailty [31]. Too much daily sedentary time can lead to severe frailty with metabolic and musculoskeletal problems [32]. The sedentary behavior (SB) in daily living is associated with adverse heath events in older adults [33].
Sedentary behavior varies with an individual’s physical condition and living environment. Frail older adults using assisted living facilities spend more sedentary time than community-dwelling older adults. They also demonstrate a significantly lower level of functional fitness and inactivity [33]. The aged population is rising rapidly in the world and it is still increasing, with senior day care centers (nonresidential assisted living facilities) becoming a newly booming option for more and more families by providing daytime care services on weekdays. The clients are frail older adults who cannot be safely alone at home when their families are out for work. They are in a stage between living independently and residing in an assisted living facility. They may return to independent living if their functional abilities improve; conversely, they may be sent to resident assisted living institutions if frailty or disabilities worsen. Regular PA could be a countermeasure to revert or prevent frailty in assisted living [34]. A large amount of literature indicates that physically frail older adults can benefit from exercise intervention. Exercise programs have positive effects on ADL (activities of daily living) and IADL (instrumental activities of daily living) when applied for frail older adults [35]. Exercises with low-to-moderate intensity improve muscle strength, endurance, and gait [36], reduce the risk for falling [37], and maintain the physical functions of frail older adults [38,39]. Even for the very frail elderly, balance exercise can improve static balance, while gait exercise can improve dynamic balance and gait functions [40]. However, in most assisted living facilities, sedentary activities such as painting and handcraft making are often included, but physical activities are rare and insufficient.
Effects of physical activity or exercise on healthy older adults are much discussed, however, few studies are concerned with the effects of regular PA in different living settings from viewpoints of physical functional performance, which implies physical capacity to perform a functional activity required in daily life, particularly on the frail ones in assisted living. As to the results of the previous studies mentioned above, regular PA may have different effects on older adults with different health status. The purpose of this study is to compare the physical functional performances of older adults with and without regular PA in two living settings, independent living and day care living groups. We hypothesized that regular physical activity could enhance the physical functional performance of both groups. We also hypothesized that correlations exist between the frequency of physical activity per week and the physical functional performances of community-dwelling older adults.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Subjects

For the purpose of this study, older adults living in rural areas were recruited via two local bureaus and three senior day care centers in Tainan City, Taiwan. All of them were ambulatory with/without assistive devices, and mentally competent to understand instructions. Candidates with major musculoskeletal disease or other disorders affecting their ability to perform the exercises and our physical function tests were not taken in. In total, 163 participants (78.2 ± 7.4 years; 48 males and 115 females) were recruited for this study; all of them met inclusion criteria and were successfully measured. Ethical approval was granted by the National Cheng Kung University Hospital Institutional Review Board (approval number: B-ER-105-126), and written consent was obtained from all participants before the start of the study.

2.2. Study Design

The participants were grouped according to their lifestyles: (1) community-dwelling (CD) older adults (healthy individuals who live in a private residence without care support) and (2) physically frail older adults attending senior day care (DC) centers for at least one year. A face-to-face questionnaire was used to survey the PA habits of the participants of the CD group, including type, duration (the length of time for each bout of any specific activity), frequency (the number of times per week they exercise), and intensity (the scores determined by Borg Rating of Perceived Exertion Scale) of the exercises with more accurate screening. Regular PA in this study was defined as engaging in PA at least three times a week for more than 30 min each time. For the participants of the DC group, the PA habits were determined by the daily schedule of activity provided by the day care centers. PA in day care centers was determined as the activities involved in major muscles, for example, walking and Tai Chi rather than static activities such as drawing and handicraft arts. On that basis, each group was further classified into “regular physical activity” (RPA) and “non-physical activity” (NPA) subgroups. The participants who engaged in physical activities less than 30 min for each bout or less than three times a week were classified as NPA subgroup.
The body height was measured using a measuring rod with an accuracy of 0.1 cm. The body weight was measured using a digital medical scale with an accuracy of 0.01 kg. The Body Mass Index (BMI) was calculated by the weight and the height in kg/m2. The demographic characteristics and the frequency of physical activities were obtained via questionnaires. Table 1 displays the characteristics of the participants. Muscle strength, flexibility, functional ability, and movement speed were measured by performance-based tests.

2.3. Physical Functional Performance

The fitness test for older adults consists of physical and functional components. Physical fitness includes muscle strength, endurance, flexibility, and so forth, and functional fitness is about the ability to perform normal daily activities [41]. According to the previous literature, exercises for healthy older adults have greater influence on physical fitness than on functional status [6,8]. There is not much difference in functional status between them because they are totally independent in activities of daily living (ADL). Therefore, we measured physical functional performance focusing more on physical fitness in the CD group and more on functional fitness in the DC group with respect to frailty, which includes the weakness of grip strength and slow movement [42]. The measured items for the CD group included strength of grip, pinch, knee extensor/flexor, and hip abductor [43]. Box and blocks test (BBT) [44] and chair sit-and-reach test (CSRT) [41,45] were also conducted. For the DC group, we measured grip strength and pinch strength, and conducted BBT and CSRT. Functional fitness was evaluated via sit-to-stand test (STS), modified stepping test (MST) [45], six-meter walking (6-M walk) test [46], and forward reach Test (FRT) [47]. Table 2 contains a brief description of the measured items and the physical functional performance tests. In this study, dominant hand was determined by the hand used the most in daily activities, such as writing and eating, while dominant leg was determined as the leg used to kick a ball.

2.4. Statistical Analysis

Mann–Whitney U test was used to compare the variables of physical functional performances between the RPA and NPA of CD and another Mann–Whitney U test was done between RPA and NPA of DC. In the CD group, we used the Pearson correlation coefficient (Pearson’s r) to draw the associations between exercise frequency per week and physical functional performances. In the DC group, the frequency of physical activities was decided by the day care centers, and the whole RPA subgroup engaged in physical activities the same number of times per week, so that it is meaningless to analyze the correlation in this group. The threshold for the statistical significance was defined as p = 0.05. All statistical analyses were performed by SPSS version 17.0.

3. Results

In the CD group (Table 3), muscle strength and function of upper extremity including dominant grip strengths, bilateral pinch strength, and BBT succeeded significantly better for those with regular PA, but there were no significant differences in lower extremity strength between the older adults with and without regular PA. In the DC group, the older adults with regular PA demonstrated significantly better strength of bilateral grip and dominant pinch. Flexibility of right lower extremity, and functional performances in STS and MST were also significantly better in the older adults with regular PA than without (Table 4). However, walking speed in 6-M walk test and dynamic control in FRT were not significantly different between RPA and NPA subgroups. Figure 1, Figure 2 and Figure 3 show the differences of muscle strength, flexibility, and functional performances between the participants with and without regular PA in both CD and DC groups. Besides, the Pearson correlation analysis revealed no significant correlation between physical activity frequency per week and the physical functional measures in healthy older adults (Figure 4).

4. Discussion

The results of this study showed that individuals practicing regular physical PA performed significantly better in several physical functional tasks than their counterparts in both CD and DC group (see Figure 2, Figure 3 and Figure 4). These results confirm those mentioned in the introduction about age-associated loss of muscle strength [3] and muscle strengths in the limbs [4]. We agree that being physically active can prevent or delay the progression of basic ADL disability in aging populations [5].
In this study, there was a difference in physical levels between the two main groups. In the CD group, the RPA subgroup demonstrated greater grip and pinch strength, as well as better functional performance in BBT. In healthy older adults, PA has greater influence on physical fitness—muscle strength and endurance, flexibility, body composition, anaerobic capacity, and aerobic capacity—than on functional status [48]. Since most healthy older adults are totally independent in all self-care, few or no difference exists in assessments of functional ability. Regrettably, expected greater flexibility and strength of major muscle group in the lower extremity for the RPA subgroup did not show in our study. This outcome might be due to insufficient and effective amount of PA. The CD participants may have overestimated their exercise quantity when they reported them. For physically independent older adults, exercise quality not only considers duration and frequency, but also type and intensity. Moderate to vigorous intensity aerobic exercise could be advocated to the physically independent aged population, and muscle-strengthening for major muscle groups should be done more than twice a week to promote their physical fitness. Furthermore, PA on the basis of multiple components is a viable solution for fall prevention among community-dwelling older adults with prefrailty [49]. To avoid getting frail in old age, healthy older adults should engage in vigorous and moderate PA while they are non-frail [50].
Individuals with regular PA in DC demonstrated greater grip and pinch strength, higher flexibility of the lower extremity, and faster movements in BBT, STS, and MST. Subjects had RPA walks faster in the six-meter walking test, but without significant difference. In our study, greater flexibility was demonstrated by the individuals with regular PA in DC centers. Regular PA-induced improvement of flexibility is helpful to reduce falls in older adults because musculoskeletal limitations or deficiencies in the range of motion and the flexibility of the lower extremity may result in loss of balance [51]. Emilio et al. [52] also reported that their proprioception program intervention significantly improved flexibility—which is positively associated with balance control—and reduced the risk of falls in older adults. Regular PA contributes to flexibility improvement significantly. In addition to the effects on physical functions mentioned above, PA also promotes benefits on the cognition of frail older adults [53]. Although PA is an effective intervention to enhance physical capacity such as muscle strength, caution should be taken in type and intensity to optimize functional enhancements in frail older adults [54], since regular PA focused on the specificities of frail older adults can improve their functional levels and reverse the frail status [55]. Surprisingly, no significant correlation was found in this study between the weekly frequency of PA and physical functional performances in the CD group (see Figure 4). Although individuals with regular PA performed better in several tests, exercise frequency was not the most critical part of their physical functional improvements. Zhang et al. stated that even people with less than three exercises a week benefit from the activities if they are active in their daily life [56]. Varying levels of habitual activity have no influence on the musculoskeletal and functional outcome measures either [9]. The total quantity of PA determines the degree of health benefits.
The 2018 Physical Activity Guidelines Advisory Committee Scientific Report recommended that individuals within the public health target gain more benefits by doing moderate-to vigorous PA, while individuals below the target PA range achieve greater benefit by reducing sedentary behavior and increasing moderate-intensity PA [57]. It has been indicated that prolonged sitting time was associated with lower health-related quality of life [58], and the reduction of sedentary behavior and the increase of PA bring about improved functional fitness in older adults [59]. However, a large number of older adults did not attain the recommended level of PA, and the proportion of inactive older people increases with age rapidly [60]. Active lifestyle might confer benefits on fitness more than PA habit does, therefore, PA should be encouraged in assisted living facilities as a routine to replace sedentary activities.
This study had a few limitations. (1) It was cross-sectional, which prevented it from demonstrating causal relationship between regular PA and physical functional performance. Further longitudinal studies are required to reveal the long-term effects of PA habits. (2) We did not standardize the exercises in mode and intensity. The self-reported information of PA habits might be biased. Quantitative exercise prescriptions are needed in further studies.

5. Conclusions

In conclusion, we found that regular PA was associated with muscle strength, flexibility, and better functional performances in both community-dwelling older adults and frail ones in day care centers. However, we found no significant associations between PA frequency and physical functional performance in healthy older adults, and it may be because their PA level is insufficient to show the effects. The results implied that currently physically independent older adults should maintain their effective amounts of PA to prevent frailty or disability. Our results also confirm the importance of regular PA as a routine to reduce sedentary time for the frail older adults in assisted living facilities.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, F.-C.S., L.-C.K. and Y.-J.T.; methodology, F.-C.S., L.-C.K., Y.-J.T. and I.-F.C.; software, I.-F.C.; formal analysis, I.-F.C. and Y.-J.T.; investigation, I.-F.C. and Y.-J.T.; resources, F.-C.S. and L.-C.K.; data curation, F.-C.S., L.-C.K., Y.-J.T. and I.-F.C.; writing—original draft preparation, I.-F.C.; writing—review and editing, I.-F.C.; supervision, F.-C.S., L.-C.K. and Y.-J.T.; project administration, F.-C.S.; funding acquisition, F.-C.S. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was funded by Ministry of Science and Technology, Taiwan, grant number MOST106-2627-M-006-014.

Institutional Review Board Statement

The study was conducted according to the guidelines of the Declaration of Helsinki, and approved by the Institutional Review Board of National Cheng Kung University Hospital.

Informed Consent Statement

Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study. Written informed consent has been obtained from the patients to publish this paper.

Acknowledgments

We thank the physical training instructor, Nai-Hsin Yang, for design and conduct of the exercise programs in this study.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest. The funders had no role in the design of the study; in the collection, analyses, or interpretation of data; in the writing of the manuscript, or in the decision to publish the results.

References

  1. Robb, B. Exercise and Physical Activity: What’s the Difference? 2009. Available online: http://www.everydayhealth.com/fitness/basics/difference-between-exercise-and-physical-activity.aspx (accessed on 18 November 2014).
  2. Daskalopoulou, C.; Stubbs, B.; Kralj, C.; Koukounari, A.; Prince, M.; Prina, A. Physical activity and healthy ageing: A systematic review and meta-analysis of longitudinal cohort studies. Ageing Res. Rev. 2017, 38, 6–17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  3. Goodpaster, B.H.; Chomentowski, P.; Ward, B.K.; Rossi, A.; Glynn, N.W.; Delmonico, M.J.; Kritchevsky, S.B.; Pahor, M.; Newman, A.B. Effects of physical activity on strength and skeletal muscle fat infiltration in older adults: A randomized controlled trial. J. Appl. Physiol. 2008, 105, 1498–1503. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  4. Goh, V.H.H.; Hart, W.G. Associations of physical exercise as a lifestyle habit with lean and fat body mass and handgrip strength and age in Asian men. Aging Male 2014, 17, 131–135. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Tak, E.; Kuiper, R.; Chorus, A.; Hopman-Rock, M. Prevention of onset and progression of basic ADL disability by physical activity in community dwelling older adults: A meta-analysis. Ageing Res. Rev. 2013, 12, 329–338. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  6. Akune, T.; Muraki, S.; Oka, H.; Tanaka, S.; Kawaguchi, H.; Nakamura, K.; Yoshimura, N. Exercise habits during middle age are associated with lower prevalence of sarcopenia: The ROAD study. Osteoporos. Int. 2013, 25, 1081–1088. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  7. Steffl, M.; Bohannon, R.W.; Sontakova, L.; Tufano, J.J.; Shiells, K.; Holmerova, I. Relationship between sarcopenia and physical activity in older people: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Clin. Interv. Aging 2017, 12, 835–845. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  8. Rantanen, T.; Heikkinen, E. The Role of Habitual Physical Activity in Preserving Muscle Strength from Age 80 to 85 Years. J. Aging Phys. Act. 1998, 6, 121–132. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Daly, R.M.; Ahlborg, H.G.; Ringsberg, K.; Gärdsell, P.; Sernbo, I.; Karlsson, M.K. Association Between Changes in Habitual Physical Activity and Changes in Bone Density, Muscle Strength, and Functional Performance in Elderly Men and Women. J. Am. Geriatr. Soc. 2008, 56, 2252–2260. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  10. Cunningham, C.; Sullivan, R.O.; Caserotti, P.; Tully, M.A. Consequences of physical inactivity in older adults: A systematic review of reviews and meta-analyses. Scand. J. Med. Sci. Sports 2020, 30, 816–827. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Kamijo, T.; Murakami, M. Regular Physical Exercise Improves Physical Motor Functions and Biochemical Markers in Middle-Age and Elderly Women. J. Phys. Act. Health 2009, 6, 55–62. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  12. O’Donovan, G.; Thomas, E.L.; McCarthy, J.P.; Fitzpatrick, J.; Durighel, G.; Mehta, S.; Morin, S.X.; Goldstone, A.P.; Bell, J.D. Fat distribution in men of different waist girth, fitness level and exercise habit. Int. J. Obes. 2009, 33, 1356–1362. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  13. Samitz, G.; Egger, M.; Zwahlen, M. Domains of physical activity and all-cause mortality: Systematic review and dose—Response meta—Analysis of cohort studies. Int. J. Epidemiol. 2011, 40, 1382–1400. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  14. De Oliveira, A.S.; Santos, A.D.C.; Trombetta, I.C.; Dantas, M.M.; Silvestre, A.C.O.M.; Nascimento, L.S.D.; Barbosa, B.T.; Dos Santos, M.R.; Andrade, M.D.A.; De Lima, A.M.J.; et al. Regular physical exercise improves cardiac autonomic and muscle vasodilatory responses to isometric exercise in healthy elderly. Clin. Interv. Aging 2017, 12, 1021–1028. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  15. Aune, D.; Norat, T.; Leitzmann, M.F.; Tonstad, S.; Vatten, L.J. Physical activity and the risk of type 2 diabetes: A systematic review and dose—Response meta—Analysis. Eur. J. Epidemiol. 2015, 30, 529–542. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  16. Liu, Y.; Hu, F.; Li, D.; Wang, F.; Zhu, L.; Chen, W.; Ge, J.; An, R.; Zhao, Y. Does Physical Activity Reduce the Risk of Prostate Cancer? A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. Eur. Urol. 2011, 60, 1029–1044. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  17. Wu, Y.; Zhang, D.; Kang, S. Physical activity and risk of breast cancer: A meta-analysis of prospective studies. Breast Cancer Res. Treat. 2012, 137, 869–882. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Blondell, S.J.; Hammersley-Mather, R.; Veerman, J.L. Does physical activity prevent cognitive decline and dementia? A systematic review and meta-analysis of longitudinal studies. BMC Public Health 2014, 14, 510. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  19. George, E.K.; Reddy, P.H. Can Healthy Diets, Regular Exercise, and Better Lifestyle Delay the Progression of Dementia in Elderly Individuals? J. Alzheimers Dis. 2019, 72, S37–S58. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  20. Lee, J. The Relationship Between Physical Activity and Dementia: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Prospective Cohort Studies. J. Gerontol. Nurs. 2018, 44, 22–29. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  21. Schuch, F.B.; Vancampfort, D.; Firth, J.; Rosenbaum, S.; Ward, P.B.; Silva, E.S.; Hallgren, M.; De Leon, A.P.; Dunn, A.L.; Deslandes, A.C.; et al. Physical Activity and Incident Depression: A Meta-Analysis of Prospective Cohort Studies. Am. J. Psychiatry 2018, 175, 631–648. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  22. Geirsdottir, O.G.; Arnarson, A.; Briem, K.; Ramel, A.; Jonsson, P.V.; Thorsdottir, I. Effect of 12-Week Resistance Exercise Program on Body Composition, Muscle Strength, Physical Function, and Glucose Metabolism in Healthy, Insulin-Resistant, and Diabetic Elderly Icelanders. J. Gerontol. Ser. A Boil. Sci. Med Sci. 2012, 67, 1259–1265. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  23. Da Silva, V.D.; Tribess, S.; Meneguci, J.; Sasaki, J.E.; Garcia-Meneguci, C.A.; Carneiro, J.A.O.; Virtuoso, S., Jr. Association between frailty and the combination of physical activity level and sedentary behavior in older adults. BMC Public Health 2019, 19, 1–6. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  24. Paw, M.J.M.C.A.; Van Uffelen, J.G.Z.; I Riphagen, I.; Van Mechelen, W. The Functional Effects of Physical Exercise Training in Frail Older People. Sports Med. 2008, 38, 781–793. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  25. Baker, M.K.; Atlantis, E.; Singh, M.A.F. Multi-modal exercise programs for older adults. Age Ageing 2007, 36, 375–381. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  26. Lord, S.R.; Matters, B.; George, R.S.; Thomas, M.; Bindon, J.; Chan, D.K.; Collings, A.; Haren, L. The effects of water exercise on physical functioning in older people. Australas. J. Ageing 2006, 25, 36–41. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Rendon, A.A.; Lohman, E.B.; Thorpe, D.; Johnson, E.G.; Medina, E.; Bradley, B. The effect of virtual reality gaming on dynamic balance in older adults. Age Ageing 2012, 41, 549–552. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  28. Park, W.; Park, H.-Y.; Lim, K.; Park, J. The role of habitual physical activity on arterial stiffness in elderly Individuals: A systematic review and meta-analysis. J. Exerc. Nutr. Biochem. 2017, 21, 16–21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Huang, P.H.; Hsueh, M.C.; Liao, Y. Physical Activity Guidelines and Recommendations for Older Adults of Different Countries. J. Sports Res. 2018, 27, 1–12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Health Promotion Administration, Ministry of Health and Welfare, R.O.C. (Taiwan). Taiwan Physical Activity Guidelines; Health Promotion Administration, Ministry of Health and Welfare, R.O.C. (Taiwan): Taipei, Taiwan, 2017.
  31. Chang, S.; Chien, N.; Wai, J.P.; Chiang, C.; Yu, C. Examining the links between regular leisure-time physical activity, sitting time and prefrailty in community-dwelling older adults. J. Adv. Nurs. 2021. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  32. Song, J.; Lindquist, L.A.; Chang, R.W.; Semanik, P.A.; Ehrlich-Jones, L.S.; Lee, J.; Sohn, M.-W.; Dunlop, D.D. Sedentary Behavior as a Risk Factor for Physical Frailty Independent of Moderate Activity: Results From the Osteoarthritis Initiative. Am. J. Public Health 2015, 105, 1439–1445. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Król-Zielińska, M.; Kusy, K.; Zieliński, J.; Osiński, W. Physical activity and functional fitness in institutionalized vs. independently living elderly: A comparison of 70–80-year-old city-dwellers. Arch. Gerontol. Geriatr. 2011, 53, e10–e16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Papiol, M.; Serra-Prat, M.; Vico, J.; Jerez, N.; Salvador, N.; García, M.; Camps, M.; Alpiste, X.; López, J. Poor Muscle Strength and Low Physical Activity are the Most Prevalent Frailty Components in Community-Dwelling Older Adults. J. Aging Phys. Act. 2016, 24, 363–368. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  35. Chou, C.-H.; Hwang, C.-L.; Wu, Y.-T. Effect of Exercise on Physical Function, Daily Living Activities, and Quality of Life in the Frail Older Adults: A Meta-Analysis. Arch. Phys. Med. Rehabil. 2012, 93, 237–244. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  36. Rubenstein, L.Z.; Josephson, K.R.; Trueblood, P.R.; Loy, S.; Harker, J.O.; Pietruszka, F.M.; Robbins, A.S. Effects of a Group Exercise Program on Strength, Mobility, and Falls Among Fall-Prone Elderly Men. J. Gerontol. Ser. A Boil. Sci. Med Sci. 2000, 55, M317–M321. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Morgan, R.O.; Virnig, B.A.; Duque, M.; Abdel-Moty, E.; DeVito, C.A. Low-Intensity Exercise and Reduction of the Risk for Falls Among At-Risk Elders. J. Gerontol. Ser. A Boil. Sci. Med Sci. 2004, 59, M1062–M1067. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Lord, S.R.; Castell, S.; Corcoran, J.; Dayhew, J.; Matters, B.; Shan, A.; Williams, P. The Effect of Group Exercise on Physical Functioning and Falls in Frail Older People Living in Retirement Villages: A Randomized, Controlled Trial. J. Am. Geriatr. Soc. 2003, 51, 1685–1692. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  39. Sahin, U.K.; Kirdi, N.; Bozoglu, E.; Meric, A.; Buyukturan, G.; Ozturk, A.; Doruk, H. Effect of low-intensity versus high-intensity resistance training on the functioning of the institutionalized frail elderly. Int. J. Rehabil. Res. 2018, 41, 211–217. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Shimada, H.; Uchiyama, Y.; Kakurai, S. Specific effects of balance and gait exercises on physical function among the frail elderly. Clin. Rehabil. 2003, 17, 472–479. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Jones, C.J.; Rikli, R.E. Measuring functional fitness of older adults. J. Act. Aging 2002, 1, 25–30. [Google Scholar]
  42. Fried, L.P.; Tangen, C.M.; Walston, J.; Newman, A.B.; Hirsch, C.; Gottdiener, J.; Seeman, T.; Tracy, R.; Kop, W.J.; Burke, G.; et al. Frailty in Older Adults: Evidence for a Phenotype. J. Gerontol. Ser. A Biol. Sci. Med. Sci. 2001, 56, M146–M156. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Clarkson, H.M. Musculoskeletal Assessment: Joint Range of Motion and Manual Muscle Strength; Lippincott Williams & Wilkins: Philadelphia, PA, USA, 2000. [Google Scholar]
  44. Mathiowetz, V.; Volland, G.; Kashman, N.; Weber, K. Adult Norms for the Box and Block Test of Manual Dexterity. Am. J. Occup. 1985, 39, 386–391. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  45. Rikli, R.E.; Jones, C.J. Development and Validation of a Functional Fitness Test for Community-Residing Older Adults. J. Aging Phys. Act. 1999, 7, 129–161. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Thomas, D.R.; Marren, K.; Banks, W.; Morley, J. Do Objective Measurements of Physical Function in Ambulatory Nursing Home Women Improve Assessment of Functional Status? J. Am. Med. Dir. Assoc. 2007, 8, 469–476. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Weiner, D.K.; Duncan, P.W.; Chandler, J.; Studenski, S.A. Functional Reach: A Marker of Physical Frailty. J. Am. Geriatr. Soc. 1992, 40, 203–207. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Buchner, D.M.; Beresford, S.A.; Larson, E.B.; Lacroix, A.Z.; Wagner, E.H. Effects of Physical Activity on Health Status in Older Adults II: Intervention Studies. Annu. Rev. Public Health 1992, 13, 469–488. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  49. Chittrakul, J.; Siviroj, P.; Sungkarat, S.; Sapbamrer, R. Multi-System Physical Exercise Intervention for Fall Prevention and Quality of Life in Pre-Frail Older Adults: A Randomized Controlled Trial. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2020, 17, 3102. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  50. Rogers, N.T.; Marshall, A.; Roberts, C.H.; Demakakos, P.; Steptoe, A.; Scholes, S. Physical activity and trajectories of frailty among older adults: Evidence from the English Longitudinal Study of Ageing. PLoS ONE 2017, 12, e0170878. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  51. Chiacchiero, M.; Dresely, B.; Silva, U.; Delosreyes, R.; Vorik, B. The Relationship Between Range of Movement, Flexibility, and Balance in the Elderly. Top. Geriatr. Rehabil. 2010, 26, 148–155. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  52. Emilio, E.J.M.-L.; Hita-Contreras, F.; Jiménez-Lara, P.M.; Latorre-Román, P.; Martínez-Amat, A. The Association of Flexibility, Balance, and Lumbar Strength with Balance Ability: Risk of Falls in Older Adults. J. Sports Sci. Med. 2014, 13, 349–357. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  53. Rossi, P.G.; Carnavale, B.F.; Farche, A.C.S.; Ansai, J.H.; de Andrade, L.P.; Takahashi, A.C.D.M. Effects of physical exercise on the cognition of older adults with frailty syndrome: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized trials. Arch. Gerontol. Geriatr. 2021, 93, 104322. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Lopez, P.; Izquierdo, M.; Radaelli, R.; Sbruzzi, G.; Grazioli, R.; Pinto, R.S.; Cadore, E.L.; Shurzzi, G. Effectiveness of Multimodal Training on Functional Capacity in Frail Older People: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials. J. Aging Phys. Act. 2018, 26, 407–418. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  55. Iosimuta, N.C.R.; Pessanha, F.P.A.S.; Alves, N.; Marques, L.T.; Porto, J.M.; Freire, R.C., Jr.; Ferriolli, E.; De Abreu, D.C.C. The effects of a multi-component intervention on the functional capacity, lower-body muscle strength, balance and gait in frail community-dwelling older people: A randomised controlled trial protocol. Eur. J. Physiother. 2019, 22, 262–273. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Zhang, J.-G.; Ohta, T.; Ishikawa-Takata, K.; Tabata, I.; Miyashita, M. Effects of daily activity recorded by pedometer on peak oxygen consumption (V˙O2peak), ventilatory threshold and leg extension power in 30- to 69-year-old Japanese without exercise habit. Graefe’s Arch. Clin. Exp. Ophthalmol. 2003, 90, 109–113. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Physical Activity Guidelines Advisory Committee. 2018 Physical Activity Guidelines Advisory Committee Scientific Report; US Department of Health and Human Services: Washington, DC, USA, 2018.
  58. Choi, J.; Cho, Y.; Kim, Y.; Lee, S.; Lee, J.; Yi, Y.; Tak, Y.; Hwang, H.; Lee, S.; Park, E.; et al. The Relationship of Sitting Time and Physical Activity on the Quality of Life in Elderly People. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2021, 18, 1459. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Santos, D.A.; Silva, A.M.; Baptista, F.; Santos, R.; Vale, S.; Mota, J.; Sardinha, L.B. Sedentary behavior and physical activity are independently related to functional fitness in older adults. Exp. Gerontol. 2012, 47, 908–912. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  60. Zubala, A.; MacGillivray, S.; Frost, H.; Kroll, T.; Skelton, D.A.; Gavine, A.; Gray, N.M.; Toma, M.; Morris, J. Promotion of physical activity interventions for community dwelling older adults: A systematic review of reviews. PLoS ONE 2017, 12, e0180902. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Ijerph 18 03561 g001 550
Figure 1. Muscle strength of (a) grip (b) pinch and (c) lower extremity of the participants; * p < 0.05; ** p < 0.05; *** p < 0.01.
Figure 1. Muscle strength of (a) grip (b) pinch and (c) lower extremity of the participants; * p < 0.05; ** p < 0.05; *** p < 0.01.
Ijerph 18 03561 g001
Ijerph 18 03561 g002 550
Figure 2. (a) Chair sit and reach test and (b) box and block test of the participants of two groups; * p < 0.05; *** p < 0.01.
Figure 2. (a) Chair sit and reach test and (b) box and block test of the participants of two groups; * p < 0.05; *** p < 0.01.
Ijerph 18 03561 g002
Ijerph 18 03561 g003 550
Figure 3. Functional test of (a) sit to stand test, (b) 6-m walking test, (c) modified stepping test and (d) forward reach test of the participants of DC group; * p < 0.05; ** p < 0.05.
Figure 3. Functional test of (a) sit to stand test, (b) 6-m walking test, (c) modified stepping test and (d) forward reach test of the participants of DC group; * p < 0.05; ** p < 0.05.
Ijerph 18 03561 g003
Ijerph 18 03561 g004 550
Figure 4. Correlations between exercise frequency and functional performances in the CD group.
Figure 4. Correlations between exercise frequency and functional performances in the CD group.
Ijerph 18 03561 g004
Table
Table 1. Characteristics of the participants (average ± SD).
Table 1. Characteristics of the participants (average ± SD).
Community-Dwelling (CD) GroupDay Care (DC) Center Group
RPA subgroupNPA subgroupRPA subgroupNPA subgroup
Item(n = 35)(n = 40)(n = 47)(n = 41)
Age74.4 ± 6.4 *77.9 ± 7.3 *79.8 ± 7.180.8 ± 6.8
GenderFemale: 26Female: 22Female: 35Female: 32
Male: 9Male: 18Male: 12Male: 9
Height (cm)154.99 ± 5.85156.19 ± 8.91151.62 ± 7.74153.46 ± 9.1
Weight (kg)57.23 ± 11.7658.06 ± 9.2454.70 ± 9.77 *58.59 ± 8.77 *
BMI (kg/m2)23.85 ± 4.9324.23 ± 3.3723.80 ± 3.8125.04 ± 4.44
RPA: regular physical activity; NPA: non-physical activity; n: numbers of subjects. * p < 0.05.
Table
Table 2. Brief description of physical functional performance measures.
Table 2. Brief description of physical functional performance measures.
ItemDescriptionMeasure
BBTThe subjects are instructed to move one block at a time from one compartment to the other one of the test box as fast as possible, but in one minute.Number of blocks
CSRTThe subjects are seated on a chair with knee straight, then being instructed to place one hand on the other with tips of the middle fingers flush. The subjects reach slowly toward the toes by bending their trunks while exhaling.
Distance between the fingers and the toes was measured.
Average of two trials.
*A negative distance means that the fingertips did not reach the toes, while a positive score means that the fingertips reached beyond the toes.		cm
Muscle strengthMeasured by a hand dynamometer (Jamar® Lafayette Instrument Company, Lafayette, IN, USA) for grip, a finger pinch gauge for pinch, and a digital dynamometer (MicroFET 3) for lower extremities.
Average of three trials.
gripThe subjects are seated, squeezing the hand dynamometer with their fingers as hard as they can without any body movement.kg
pinchThe subjects are seated, squeezing the pinch gauge with their thumb and index fingers as hard as they can without any body movement.kg
knee extensorThe subjects are seated, extending their knees against the resistance of the examiner applying on the anterior aspect of shanks proximal to their ankles.kg
knee flexorThe subjects are prone, flexing their knees against the resistance of the examiner applying on the posterior aspect of shanks proximal to their ankles.kg
hip abductorThe subjects are side lying, abducting their hips against the resistance of the examiner applying on the lateral aspect of their knee.kg
STSThe subjects stand up and sit back from a straight-back chair three times as fast as possible with arm folded across the chest if possible.
Time of three-time movements will be measured.
Average of two trials.		sec
MSTThe subjects are stepping alternatively as fast as possible while being seated for one minute.
When one leg is raising, the foot should be completely off the ground.
The score is the repetition number of stepping for one minute.		1/min
6-M walkThe subjects have to walk 6 m as fast as possible (with or without walking aid).
Time of the movement will be recorded.		sec
FRTThe subjects are standing upright, stretching their arms forward, maintaining a fixed base of support while leaning forward is allowed.
The distance between the front end of their fists before and after the movement will be measured.
Average of two trials.		cm
Table
Table 3. Comparison of physical performances between the RPA and the NPA subgroups in CD group.
Table 3. Comparison of physical performances between the RPA and the NPA subgroups in CD group.
CD-RPACD-NPAp-Value
Item(n = 35)(n = 40)
Grip (kg)
dominant21.05 ± 6.6818.03 ± 5.250.031 *
nondominant18.67 ± 6.1818.57 ± 5.690.942
Pinch (kg)
dominant7.85 ± 3.894.74 ± 1.46<0.001 ***
nondominant6.86 ± 3.734.44 ± 1.470.001 **
CSRT (cm)
right3.40 ± 11.27−3.32 ± 11.230.059
left2.57 ± 11.58−3.38 ± 11.320.101
BBT (number of blocks)
dominant59.9 ± 9.245.2 ± 11.9<0.001 ***
nondominant55.7 ± 7.642.0 ± 9.9<0.001 ***
Knee extensor (kg)
right13.31 ± 3.4610.82 ± 5.420.057
left12.50 ± 3.4510.94 ± 5.460.228
Knee flexor (kg)
right11.70 ± 3.0110.51 ± 4.490.357
left11.29 ± 2.9910.04 ± 4.490.335
Hip abductor (kg)
right13.80 ± 3.4212.16 ± 4.360.158
left14.12 ± 7.2611.16 ± 4.490.151
Data are expressed as means ± standard deviation. CD-RPA: regular physical activity subgroup in community-dwelling group; CD-NPA: non-physical activity subgroup in community-dwelling group; n: number of subjects; CSRT: chair sit-and-reach test; BBT: box and blocks test. p values based on the Mann–Whitney U test; * p < 0.05; ** p < 0.05; *** p < 0.01.
Table
Table 4. The comparison of physical performance between the RPA and the NPA subgroups in DC group.
Table 4. The comparison of physical performance between the RPA and the NPA subgroups in DC group.
DC-RPADC-NPAp-Value
Item(n = 47)(n = 41)
Grip (kg)
dominant16.33 ± 7.8110.71 ± 4.12<0.001 ***
nondominant14.55 ± 6.569.74 ± 6.070.001 ***
Pinch (kg)
dominant4.29 ± 1.493.57 ± 1.430.023 *
nondominant3.86 ± 1.433.36 ± 2.720.286
CSRT (cm)
right−3.89 ± 8.53−11.35 ± 12.950.031 *
left5.61 ± 9.27−11.55 ± 12.620.083
BBT (number of blocks)
dominant38.7 ± 10.135.0 ± 12.90.131
nondominant37.8 ± 11.032.6 ± 11.80.039 *
STS (sec)9.18 ± 5.9613.83 ± 9.980.037 *
MST (1/min)188.00 ± 62.14130.54 ± 46.510.002 **
6-M walk (sec)22.04 ± 20.6623.75 ± 20.290.772
FRT (cm)16.53 ± 6.2616.46 ± 9.360.98
Data are expressed as means ± standard deviation. DC-RPA: regular physical activity subgroup in day care group; DC-NPA: non-physical activity subgroup in day care group; n: number of subjects; CSRT: chair sit-and-reach test; BBT: box and blocks test; STS: sit-to-stand test; MST: modified stepping test; 6-M walk: six-meter walking test; FRT: forward reach test. p values based on the Mann–Whitney U test; * p < 0.05; ** p < 0.05; *** p < 0.01.
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Cheng, I.-F.; Kuo, L.-C.; Tsai, Y.-J.; Su, F.-C. The Comparisons of Physical Functional Performances between Older Adults with and without Regular Physical Activity in Two Different Living Settings. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2021, 18, 3561. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18073561

AMA Style

Cheng I-F, Kuo L-C, Tsai Y-J, Su F-C. The Comparisons of Physical Functional Performances between Older Adults with and without Regular Physical Activity in Two Different Living Settings. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. 2021; 18(7):3561. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18073561

Chicago/Turabian Style

Cheng, I-Fang, Li-Chieh Kuo, Yi-Jung Tsai, and Fong-Chin Su. 2021. "The Comparisons of Physical Functional Performances between Older Adults with and without Regular Physical Activity in Two Different Living Settings" International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 18, no. 7: 3561. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18073561

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