Frailty, Fitness, and Quality of Life Outcomes of a Healthy and Productive Aging Program (GrandMove) for Older Adults With Frailty or Prefrailty: Cluster Randomized Controlled Trial.

IF 5 Q1 GERIATRICS & GERONTOLOGY
JMIR Aging Pub Date : 2025-05-14 DOI:10.2196/65636
Jennifer Yee Man Tang, Hao Luo, Michael Tse, Joseph Kwan, Angela Yee Man Leung, Teresa Bik-Kwan Tsien Wong, Terry Yat Sang Lum, Gloria Hoi Yan Wong
{"title":"Frailty, Fitness, and Quality of Life Outcomes of a Healthy and Productive Aging Program (GrandMove) for Older Adults With Frailty or Prefrailty: Cluster Randomized Controlled Trial.","authors":"Jennifer Yee Man Tang, Hao Luo, Michael Tse, Joseph Kwan, Angela Yee Man Leung, Teresa Bik-Kwan Tsien Wong, Terry Yat Sang Lum, Gloria Hoi Yan Wong","doi":"10.2196/65636","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Exercise interventions can reverse frailty. However, their scalability and sustainability are limited by manpower, which is reducing due to population aging. GrandMove is a program that combines healthy and productive aging strategies to (1) train and employ robust older adults as exercise coaches and (2) improve fitness and motivate the adoption of an exercise habit in older adults with frailty and prefrailty.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>The aim of this study is to examine the effectiveness of GrandMove in improving frailty, fitness, and quality of life in older adults with frailty and prefrailty.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This cluster randomized controlled trial recruited older adults with frailty and prefrailty (N=390) living in the community. The 18-month exercise program consisted of three 6-month phases of lifestyle education (E), resistance exercise (R), and aerobic exercise (A). Each group of participants was randomized into 3 intervention sequence arms: the E-R-A group, the A-R-E group, and the R-A-E group.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>At 6, 12, and 18 months, 346, 305, and 264 participants completed the frailty assessment, respectively. At 6 months, 100 of 346 participants (28.9%) were robust. A-R-E and R-A-E were no better than E-R-A as the active control in addressing frailty over the first 6 months (A-R-E: interaction coefficient 0.07, 95% CI -0.35 to 0.49, P=.68; R-A-E: interaction coefficient -0.02, 95% CI -0.42 to 0.38, P=.90). Compared to lifestyle education, resistance training and aerobic training over the first 6 months were associated with greater improvement in fitness measures of grip strength for the left hand (A-R-E: interaction coefficient 2.99, 95% CI 0.76 to 5.23, P=.009; R-A-E: interaction coefficient 2.21, 95% CI 0.63 to 4.36, P=.04) and right hand (A-R-E: interaction coefficient 3.75, 95% CI 1.54 to 5.97, P=.001; R-A-E: interaction coefficient 2.29, 95% CI 0.16 to 4.42, P=.04) and arm curl test (A-R-E: interaction coefficient 1.42, 95% CI 0.39 to 2.46, P=.007; R-A-E: interaction coefficient 1.11, 95% CI 0.12 to 2.11, P=.03). The sequence of exercise interventions (R-A-E vs A-R-E) did not make a difference in primary outcomes at 12 months, but the R-A-E group showed better quality of life (interaction coefficient 4.50, 95% CI 0.12 to 8.88, P=.008). Improved frailty outcomes were maintained by the end of the study, but the change in overall physical activity level was limited.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Combining healthy and productive aging strategies is a scalable and sustainable way to improve frailty, fitness, and quality of life in older adults with frailty and prefrailty. Different combinations of lifestyle education and physical interventions improved frailty.</p>","PeriodicalId":36245,"journal":{"name":"JMIR Aging","volume":"8 ","pages":"e65636"},"PeriodicalIF":5.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-05-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12094531/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"JMIR Aging","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2196/65636","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"GERIATRICS & GERONTOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Exercise interventions can reverse frailty. However, their scalability and sustainability are limited by manpower, which is reducing due to population aging. GrandMove is a program that combines healthy and productive aging strategies to (1) train and employ robust older adults as exercise coaches and (2) improve fitness and motivate the adoption of an exercise habit in older adults with frailty and prefrailty.

Objective: The aim of this study is to examine the effectiveness of GrandMove in improving frailty, fitness, and quality of life in older adults with frailty and prefrailty.

Methods: This cluster randomized controlled trial recruited older adults with frailty and prefrailty (N=390) living in the community. The 18-month exercise program consisted of three 6-month phases of lifestyle education (E), resistance exercise (R), and aerobic exercise (A). Each group of participants was randomized into 3 intervention sequence arms: the E-R-A group, the A-R-E group, and the R-A-E group.

Results: At 6, 12, and 18 months, 346, 305, and 264 participants completed the frailty assessment, respectively. At 6 months, 100 of 346 participants (28.9%) were robust. A-R-E and R-A-E were no better than E-R-A as the active control in addressing frailty over the first 6 months (A-R-E: interaction coefficient 0.07, 95% CI -0.35 to 0.49, P=.68; R-A-E: interaction coefficient -0.02, 95% CI -0.42 to 0.38, P=.90). Compared to lifestyle education, resistance training and aerobic training over the first 6 months were associated with greater improvement in fitness measures of grip strength for the left hand (A-R-E: interaction coefficient 2.99, 95% CI 0.76 to 5.23, P=.009; R-A-E: interaction coefficient 2.21, 95% CI 0.63 to 4.36, P=.04) and right hand (A-R-E: interaction coefficient 3.75, 95% CI 1.54 to 5.97, P=.001; R-A-E: interaction coefficient 2.29, 95% CI 0.16 to 4.42, P=.04) and arm curl test (A-R-E: interaction coefficient 1.42, 95% CI 0.39 to 2.46, P=.007; R-A-E: interaction coefficient 1.11, 95% CI 0.12 to 2.11, P=.03). The sequence of exercise interventions (R-A-E vs A-R-E) did not make a difference in primary outcomes at 12 months, but the R-A-E group showed better quality of life (interaction coefficient 4.50, 95% CI 0.12 to 8.88, P=.008). Improved frailty outcomes were maintained by the end of the study, but the change in overall physical activity level was limited.

Conclusions: Combining healthy and productive aging strategies is a scalable and sustainable way to improve frailty, fitness, and quality of life in older adults with frailty and prefrailty. Different combinations of lifestyle education and physical interventions improved frailty.

衰弱、健康和生活质量的健康和富有成效的老龄化计划(GrandMove)对衰弱或衰弱的老年人的结果:集群随机对照试验。
背景:运动干预可以逆转虚弱。然而,由于人口老龄化,它们的可扩展性和可持续性受到人力资源的限制。GrandMove是一个结合了健康和富有成效的老龄化策略的项目,它可以(1)训练和雇用强壮的老年人作为运动教练,(2)提高老年人的健康水平,并鼓励他们养成运动习惯。目的:本研究的目的是检查GrandMove在改善虚弱和虚弱的老年人的虚弱,健康和生活质量方面的有效性。方法:本群随机对照试验招募社区生活的体弱多病老年人(N=390)。18个月的运动计划包括三个6个月的阶段,生活方式教育(E),阻力运动(R)和有氧运动(A)。每组受试者随机分为3个干预顺序组:E-R-A组、A-R-E组和R-A-E组。结果:在6、12和18个月时,分别有346,305和264名参与者完成了虚弱评估。在6个月时,346名参与者中有100名(28.9%)是健康的。A-R-E和R-A-E作为主动对照在治疗前6个月的虚弱方面并不优于E-R-A (A-R-E:相互作用系数0.07,95% CI -0.35 ~ 0.49, P= 0.68;R-A-E:交互作用系数-0.02,95% CI -0.42 ~ 0.38, P= 0.90)。与生活方式教育相比,前6个月的阻力训练和有氧训练与左手握力健康指标的更大改善相关(A-R-E:相互作用系数2.99,95% CI 0.76至5.23,P= 0.009;R-A-E:相互作用系数2.21,95% CI 0.63 ~ 4.36, P=.04)和右手(A-R-E:相互作用系数3.75,95% CI 1.54 ~ 5.97, P=.001;R-A-E:相互作用系数2.29,95% CI 0.16 ~ 4.42, P= 0.04)和臂曲试验(A-R-E:相互作用系数1.42,95% CI 0.39 ~ 2.46, P= 0.07;R-A-E:相互作用系数1.11,95% CI 0.12 ~ 2.11, P= 0.03)。运动干预的顺序(R-A-E vs a - r - e)对12个月时的主要结果没有影响,但R-A-E组表现出更好的生活质量(相互作用系数4.50,95% CI 0.12至8.88,P= 0.008)。到研究结束时,虚弱程度的改善得到了维持,但总体体力活动水平的变化是有限的。结论:结合健康和富有成效的老龄化策略是一种可扩展和可持续的方法,可以改善老年人的虚弱,健康和生活质量。生活方式教育和身体干预的不同组合改善了虚弱。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
JMIR Aging
JMIR Aging Social Sciences-Health (social science)
CiteScore
6.50
自引率
4.10%
发文量
71
审稿时长
12 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信