Dose-response relationship of treadmill perturbation-based balance training for improving reactive balance in older adults at risk of falling: results of the FEATURE randomized controlled pilot trial.

IF 3.7 1区 医学 Q2 GERIATRICS & GERONTOLOGY
Natalie Hezel, Theresa Buchner, Clemens Becker, Jürgen M Bauer, Lizeth H Sloot, Simon Steib, Christian Werner
{"title":"Dose-response relationship of treadmill perturbation-based balance training for improving reactive balance in older adults at risk of falling: results of the FEATURE randomized controlled pilot trial.","authors":"Natalie Hezel, Theresa Buchner, Clemens Becker, Jürgen M Bauer, Lizeth H Sloot, Simon Steib, Christian Werner","doi":"10.1186/s11556-025-00375-w","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The inability to appropriately react to balance perturbations is a common cause of falls. Perturbation-based balance training (PBT) is especially beneficial for improving reactive balance and shows high potential for fall prevention. However, its dose-response relationship, feasibility, and acceptability remain to be determined among older adults at risk of falling. The FEATURE study aimed to compare the efficacy of two treadmill PBT protocols with different session numbers to improve reactive balance, and to evaluate their feasibility and acceptability in this population.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>In this randomized controlled pilot trial, 36 older adults at risk of falling were allocated to receive either six (6PBT) or two treadmill PBT sessions (2PBT). Reactive balance in standing (Stepping Threshold Test [STT]) and walking (Dynamic Stepping Threshold Test [DSTT]) was assessed as primary outcome at baseline (T1), post-intervention (T2), and 6-week follow-up (T3). Secondary outcomes included measures on physical, psychological, and cognitive functioning. Feasibility was assessed via PBT adherence, planned perturbations completed, and adverse events; acceptability via questionnaire. Between-group changes over time were compared using repeated-measures analyses of variance with Bonferroni-corrected post-hoc tests. Data analyses followed the intention-to-treat principle.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A significant time effect was observed for the DSTT (p = 0.008), with both groups significantly improving from T1 to T2 (ps < 0.01). A significant interaction effect (p = 0.027) revealed that only the 6PBT group maintained these improvements (T1 vs. T3: p < 0.001) and scored significantly higher than the 2PBT group at T3 (p = 0.015). No significant interaction effects were found for the STT or any secondary outcome, but improvements over time were observed for dynamic balance, gait capacity, functional mobility, physical activity, concerns about falling, and executive functioning (time effects: ps < 0.05). PBT adherence, planned perturbations completed, and acceptability were high in both groups, with no significant between-group differences. No intervention-related serious adverse events were reported.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Findings suggest that a low number of treadmill PBT sessions can lead to task-specific improvements in reactive balance during walking, with a higher practice dose enhancing sustainability. Treadmill PBT appears feasible and well-accepted among older adults at risk of falling, regardless of sessions received.</p><p><strong>Trial registration: </strong>DRKS00030805 ; prospectively registered December 14, 2022.</p>","PeriodicalId":50477,"journal":{"name":"European Review of Aging and Physical Activity","volume":"22 1","pages":"8"},"PeriodicalIF":3.7000,"publicationDate":"2025-05-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12082977/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"European Review of Aging and Physical Activity","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s11556-025-00375-w","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"GERIATRICS & GERONTOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: The inability to appropriately react to balance perturbations is a common cause of falls. Perturbation-based balance training (PBT) is especially beneficial for improving reactive balance and shows high potential for fall prevention. However, its dose-response relationship, feasibility, and acceptability remain to be determined among older adults at risk of falling. The FEATURE study aimed to compare the efficacy of two treadmill PBT protocols with different session numbers to improve reactive balance, and to evaluate their feasibility and acceptability in this population.

Methods: In this randomized controlled pilot trial, 36 older adults at risk of falling were allocated to receive either six (6PBT) or two treadmill PBT sessions (2PBT). Reactive balance in standing (Stepping Threshold Test [STT]) and walking (Dynamic Stepping Threshold Test [DSTT]) was assessed as primary outcome at baseline (T1), post-intervention (T2), and 6-week follow-up (T3). Secondary outcomes included measures on physical, psychological, and cognitive functioning. Feasibility was assessed via PBT adherence, planned perturbations completed, and adverse events; acceptability via questionnaire. Between-group changes over time were compared using repeated-measures analyses of variance with Bonferroni-corrected post-hoc tests. Data analyses followed the intention-to-treat principle.

Results: A significant time effect was observed for the DSTT (p = 0.008), with both groups significantly improving from T1 to T2 (ps < 0.01). A significant interaction effect (p = 0.027) revealed that only the 6PBT group maintained these improvements (T1 vs. T3: p < 0.001) and scored significantly higher than the 2PBT group at T3 (p = 0.015). No significant interaction effects were found for the STT or any secondary outcome, but improvements over time were observed for dynamic balance, gait capacity, functional mobility, physical activity, concerns about falling, and executive functioning (time effects: ps < 0.05). PBT adherence, planned perturbations completed, and acceptability were high in both groups, with no significant between-group differences. No intervention-related serious adverse events were reported.

Conclusions: Findings suggest that a low number of treadmill PBT sessions can lead to task-specific improvements in reactive balance during walking, with a higher practice dose enhancing sustainability. Treadmill PBT appears feasible and well-accepted among older adults at risk of falling, regardless of sessions received.

Trial registration: DRKS00030805 ; prospectively registered December 14, 2022.

基于跑步机扰动的平衡训练改善有跌倒危险的老年人反应性平衡的剂量-反应关系:FEATURE随机对照试验的结果。
背景:无法对平衡扰动做出适当反应是导致跌倒的常见原因。基于微扰的平衡训练(PBT)尤其有利于改善反应性平衡,并显示出预防跌倒的高潜力。然而,在有跌倒风险的老年人中,其剂量-反应关系、可行性和可接受性仍有待确定。FEATURE研究旨在比较两种不同运动次数的跑步机PBT方案改善反应性平衡的效果,并评估其在该人群中的可行性和可接受性。方法:在这项随机对照试验中,36名有跌倒风险的老年人被分配接受6次(6PBT)或2次跑步机PBT (2PBT)。在基线(T1)、干预后(T2)和6周随访(T3)评估站立(Stepping Threshold Test [STT])和行走(Dynamic Stepping Threshold Test [DSTT])的反应性平衡。次要结果包括身体、心理和认知功能的测量。通过PBT依从性、完成计划的扰动和不良事件来评估可行性;通过问卷调查的可接受性。使用重复测量方差分析和bonferroni校正的事后检验来比较组间随时间的变化。数据分析遵循意向治疗原则。结果:DSTT有显著的时间效应(p = 0.008),两组从T1到T2都有显著改善(ps)。结论:研究结果表明,少量的跑步机PBT训练可以改善行走过程中特定任务的反应性平衡,较高的练习剂量可以增强可持续性。在有跌倒风险的老年人中,跑步机PBT似乎是可行的,并且被广泛接受,无论接受何种训练。试验注册:DRKS00030805;预计将于2022年12月14日注册。
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
CiteScore
8.60
自引率
1.60%
发文量
29
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: European Review of Aging and Physical Activity (EURAPA) disseminates research on the biomedical and behavioural aspects of physical activity and aging. The main issues addressed by EURAPA are the impact of physical activity or exercise on cognitive, physical, and psycho-social functioning of older people, physical activity patterns in advanced age, and the relationship between physical activity and health.
×
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