[Effect of the Otago Exercise Program on Activities of Daily Living in Older Adults With Sarcopenia].

Q3 Medicine
Yuxiang Liang, Renjie Wang, Jiaojiao Jiang, Liqiong Wang, Long Zhang, Xueli Chun, Quan Wei
{"title":"[Effect of the Otago Exercise Program on Activities of Daily Living in Older Adults With Sarcopenia].","authors":"Yuxiang Liang, Renjie Wang, Jiaojiao Jiang, Liqiong Wang, Long Zhang, Xueli Chun, Quan Wei","doi":"10.12182/20250360608","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>To explore the effects of the Otago Exercise Program (OEP) on activities of daily living, muscle strength, balance, and physical function in older adults with sarcopenia, to compare OEP with conventional exercise training, and to provide a basis for clinical rehabilitation programs for older adults with sarcopenia.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>In this randomized controlled trial, 120 older adults clinically diagnosed with sarcopenia were enrolled. The participants were randomly assigned to the OEP intervention group (experimental group) and the conventional exercise intervention group (control group), with 60 in each group. The experimental group underwent 12 weeks of OEP training, three times a week, with each session lasting 45 minutes. The control group underwent conventional exercise training following the same schedule. The Modified Barthel Index was used as the primary outcome measure to assess activities of daily living. Secondary outcome measures included muscle strength, gait stability, dynamic balance, and physical function status, evaluated using grip strength, 6-meter walking speed, the Timed Up and Go Test (TUGT), and the Short Physical Performance Battery (SPPB).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 120 older adults with sarcopenia were included. The mean age of the participants was (80.17 ± 8.48) years. Baseline data before treatment showed no statistically significant differences between the two groups. Both groups completed the treatment within 12 weeks without experiencing any adverse events. The baseline data for the experimental group were as follows, MBI at (67.00 ± 22.76) points, hand grip strength at (15.29 ± 4.94) kg, gait speed at (0.61 ± 0.26) m/s, TUGT time at (15.05 ± 6.74) s, and SPPB score at (6.17 ± 1.40) points, while the corresponding post-intervention findings were as follows, (78.72 ± 15.83) points, (17.67 ± 5.83) kg, (0.77 ± 0.28) m/s, (13.49 ± 6.16) s, and (9.25 ± 1.71) points, respectively. The experimental group showed improvements in all measures from baseline to post-intervention (<i>P</i> < 0.05 for all measures). As for the control group, the baseline data for the corresponding measures were as follows, (67.20 ± 22.12) points, (15.00 ± 5.35) kg, (0.58 ± 0.23) m/s, (17.29 ± 6.90) s, and (6.00 ± 1.24) points, respectively. The post-intervention findings increased to (71.13 ± 20.28) points, (15.47 ± 5.72) kg, (0.64 ± 0.28) m/s, (16.50 ± 6.99) s, and (6.73 ± 1.61) points, respectively, but the changes were not statistically significant (<i>P</i> > 0.05). Furthermore, an intergroup comparison of intervention effects (post-intervention minus preintervention) revealed significant differences in mean changes from baseline. The experimental group demonstrated improvements of (+11.72 ± 6.32) points in modified Barthel Index, (+11.72 ± 6.32) kg in grip strength, (+0.16 ± 0.09) m/s in gait speed, (-1.56 ± 1.32) s in TUGT time, and (-1.56 ± 1.32) points in SPPB score. In contrast, the control group showed smaller changes of (+3.93 ± 5.65) points, (+0.47 ± 1.37) kg, (+0.06 ± 0.07) m/s, (-0.79 ± 1.54) s, and (+0.73 ± 1.12) points, respectively (all <i>P</i> < 0.05). Intergroup comparisons revealed superior outcomes in the experimental group across all measures.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>OEP significantly enhances activities of daily living, improves muscle strength, balance, and physical function in older adults, and is more effective than conventional rehabilitation exercise programs, making it suitable for extensive clinical application.</p>","PeriodicalId":39321,"journal":{"name":"四川大学学报(医学版)","volume":"56 2","pages":"543-548"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12207053/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"四川大学学报(医学版)","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.12182/20250360608","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"Medicine","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objective: To explore the effects of the Otago Exercise Program (OEP) on activities of daily living, muscle strength, balance, and physical function in older adults with sarcopenia, to compare OEP with conventional exercise training, and to provide a basis for clinical rehabilitation programs for older adults with sarcopenia.

Methods: In this randomized controlled trial, 120 older adults clinically diagnosed with sarcopenia were enrolled. The participants were randomly assigned to the OEP intervention group (experimental group) and the conventional exercise intervention group (control group), with 60 in each group. The experimental group underwent 12 weeks of OEP training, three times a week, with each session lasting 45 minutes. The control group underwent conventional exercise training following the same schedule. The Modified Barthel Index was used as the primary outcome measure to assess activities of daily living. Secondary outcome measures included muscle strength, gait stability, dynamic balance, and physical function status, evaluated using grip strength, 6-meter walking speed, the Timed Up and Go Test (TUGT), and the Short Physical Performance Battery (SPPB).

Results: A total of 120 older adults with sarcopenia were included. The mean age of the participants was (80.17 ± 8.48) years. Baseline data before treatment showed no statistically significant differences between the two groups. Both groups completed the treatment within 12 weeks without experiencing any adverse events. The baseline data for the experimental group were as follows, MBI at (67.00 ± 22.76) points, hand grip strength at (15.29 ± 4.94) kg, gait speed at (0.61 ± 0.26) m/s, TUGT time at (15.05 ± 6.74) s, and SPPB score at (6.17 ± 1.40) points, while the corresponding post-intervention findings were as follows, (78.72 ± 15.83) points, (17.67 ± 5.83) kg, (0.77 ± 0.28) m/s, (13.49 ± 6.16) s, and (9.25 ± 1.71) points, respectively. The experimental group showed improvements in all measures from baseline to post-intervention (P < 0.05 for all measures). As for the control group, the baseline data for the corresponding measures were as follows, (67.20 ± 22.12) points, (15.00 ± 5.35) kg, (0.58 ± 0.23) m/s, (17.29 ± 6.90) s, and (6.00 ± 1.24) points, respectively. The post-intervention findings increased to (71.13 ± 20.28) points, (15.47 ± 5.72) kg, (0.64 ± 0.28) m/s, (16.50 ± 6.99) s, and (6.73 ± 1.61) points, respectively, but the changes were not statistically significant (P > 0.05). Furthermore, an intergroup comparison of intervention effects (post-intervention minus preintervention) revealed significant differences in mean changes from baseline. The experimental group demonstrated improvements of (+11.72 ± 6.32) points in modified Barthel Index, (+11.72 ± 6.32) kg in grip strength, (+0.16 ± 0.09) m/s in gait speed, (-1.56 ± 1.32) s in TUGT time, and (-1.56 ± 1.32) points in SPPB score. In contrast, the control group showed smaller changes of (+3.93 ± 5.65) points, (+0.47 ± 1.37) kg, (+0.06 ± 0.07) m/s, (-0.79 ± 1.54) s, and (+0.73 ± 1.12) points, respectively (all P < 0.05). Intergroup comparisons revealed superior outcomes in the experimental group across all measures.

Conclusion: OEP significantly enhances activities of daily living, improves muscle strength, balance, and physical function in older adults, and is more effective than conventional rehabilitation exercise programs, making it suitable for extensive clinical application.

[奥塔哥运动计划对老年肌肉减少症患者日常生活活动的影响]。
目的:探讨奥塔哥运动方案(OEP)对老年肌少症患者日常生活活动、肌力、平衡及身体机能的影响,并与常规运动训练进行比较,为老年肌少症患者的临床康复方案提供依据。方法:在这项随机对照试验中,纳入了120名临床诊断为肌肉减少症的老年人。参与者随机分为OEP干预组(实验组)和常规运动干预组(对照组),每组60人。实验组接受为期12周的OEP训练,每周三次,每次持续45分钟。对照组按照相同的时间表进行常规运动训练。采用改良Barthel指数作为评估日常生活活动的主要结局指标。次要结局指标包括肌肉力量、步态稳定性、动态平衡和身体功能状态,通过握力、6米步行速度、定时起身和行走测试(TUGT)和短物理性能电池(SPPB)进行评估。结果:共纳入120例老年肌肉减少症患者。参与者平均年龄为(80.17±8.48)岁。治疗前基线数据显示两组间无统计学差异。两组均在12周内完成治疗,未发生任何不良事件。实验组基线数据为MBI(67.00±22.76)分、握力(15.29±4.94)kg、步态速度(0.61±0.26)m/s、TUGT时间(15.05±6.74)s、SPPB评分(6.17±1.40)分,干预后相应结果分别为(78.72±15.83)分、(17.67±5.83)kg、(0.77±0.28)m/s、(13.49±6.16)s、(9.25±1.71)分。实验组从基线到干预后各项指标均有改善(P < 0.05)。对照组相应措施的基线数据分别为(67.20±22.12)分、(15.00±5.35)kg、(0.58±0.23)m/s、(17.29±6.90)s、(6.00±1.24)分。干预后得分分别上升至(71.13±20.28)分、(15.47±5.72)kg、(0.64±0.28)m/s、(16.50±6.99)s、(6.73±1.61)分,但差异无统计学意义(P < 0.05)。此外,干预效果的组间比较(干预后减去干预前)显示,与基线相比,平均变化有显著差异。实验组改良Barthel指数改善(+11.72±6.32)分,握力改善(+11.72±6.32)kg,步速改善(+0.16±0.09)m/s, TUGT时间改善(-1.56±1.32)s, SPPB评分改善(-1.56±1.32)分。对照组的变化较小,分别为(+3.93±5.65)分、(+0.47±1.37)kg、(+0.06±0.07)m/s、(-0.79±1.54)s、(+0.73±1.12)分,差异均有统计学意义(P < 0.05)。组间比较显示实验组在所有测量中都有更好的结果。结论:OEP能显著增强老年人的日常生活活动能力,改善肌力、平衡能力和身体机能,比传统的康复训练方案更有效,适合临床广泛应用。
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
四川大学学报(医学版)
四川大学学报(医学版) Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology-Molecular Biology
CiteScore
0.70
自引率
0.00%
发文量
8695
期刊介绍: "Journal of Sichuan University (Medical Edition)" is a comprehensive medical academic journal sponsored by Sichuan University, a higher education institution directly under the Ministry of Education of the People's Republic of China. It was founded in 1959 and was originally named "Journal of Sichuan Medical College". In 1986, it was renamed "Journal of West China University of Medical Sciences". In 2003, it was renamed "Journal of Sichuan University (Medical Edition)" (bimonthly). "Journal of Sichuan University (Medical Edition)" is a Chinese core journal and a Chinese authoritative academic journal (RCCSE). It is included in the retrieval systems such as China Science and Technology Papers and Citation Database (CSTPCD), China Science Citation Database (CSCD) (core version), Peking University Library's "Overview of Chinese Core Journals", the U.S. "Index Medica" (IM/Medline), the U.S. "PubMed Central" (PMC), the U.S. "Biological Abstracts" (BA), the U.S. "Chemical Abstracts" (CA), the U.S. EBSCO, the Netherlands "Abstracts and Citation Database" (Scopus), the Japan Science and Technology Agency Database (JST), the Russian "Abstract Magazine", the Chinese Biomedical Literature CD-ROM Database (CBMdisc), the Chinese Biomedical Periodical Literature Database (CMCC), the China Academic Journal Network Full-text Database (CNKI), the Chinese Academic Journal (CD-ROM Edition), and the Wanfang Data-Digital Journal Group.
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信