Group-Based and Individually Delivered LiFE: Content Evaluation and Predictors of Training Response – A Dose-Response Analysis

Effectiveness of a mHealth platform-based lifestyle integrated multicomponent exercise (PF-Life) program to reverse pre-frailty in community-dwelling older adults: a randomized controlled trial study protocol

Background

Pre-frailty represents an ideal window of opportunity to potentially prevent frailty and disability. Early and effective interventions to delay or reverse pre-frailty are public health imperative. The present trial aims to evaluate the effectiveness and underlying mechanisms of mobile health (mHealth) platform-supported lifestyle-integrated multicomponent exercise (PF-Life) to reverse pre-frailty in community-dwelling older adults.

Methods

This is an open-label, prospective, two-arm parallel randomized controlled trial with allocation concealment and outcome assessment blinding. We aim to recruit 140 pre-frail community-dwelling older adults who will be randomized into two groups. The control group will receive a health education program, while the intervention group will receive PF-Life training as planned for 1 year. The proportion of pre-frailty, functional performance (muscular strength, aerobic capacity, flexibility, and balance), body composition, and physical activity will be measured at pre-intervention, post-intervention, and 12-month follow-up. Inflammatory biomarkers will also be collected to explore the underlying mechanisms.

Discussion

This is the first study to evaluate the effects of a novel digital lifestyle-integrated multicomponent exercise for pre-frail older people. The results of this trial will provide much-needed information on the short-and long-term effects of PF-Life based on functional performance and body composition. Meanwhile, inflammatory biomarkers and physical activity levels will be used to elucidate the underlying mechanisms of PF-Life. The findings from this trial will provide evidence for the effectiveness of lifestyle multicomponent exercise intervention supported by the mHealth platform that may reverse or even halt the onset of frailty.

Clinical trial registration

https://www.chictr.org.cn/showproj.html?proj=176477, identifier ChiCTR2200063431.

[Lifestyle-integrated functional exercise for fall prevention : How and why do walking characteristics change?]

BACKGROUND

The lifestyle-integrated functional exercise (LiFE) program has been shown to increase physical activity. It remains unclear, however, how these changes translate into long vs. short walking episodes.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this work was to investigate changes in short vs. long walking episodes between baseline and 6‑month follow-up and to determine which factors are associated with these changes.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

This was a two-arm randomized noninferiority study with 309 older adults (mean age 78.7 ± 0.3 years; 73.5% female) at risk of falling who exercised either in a group (gLiFE; n = 153) or individually (LiFE; n = 156). Walking episodes were measured using activPAL 4micro sensors: a distinction was made between walking episodes < 10s, < 20s, and > 60 s. Changes in walking episodes between baseline and 6‑month follow-up were analyzed, including calculation of effect sizes (Cohen's d). Determinants of changes in the walking episodes were analyzed using multiple regression.

RESULTS

The walking episodes < 10s and < 20 s showed a significant increase in both intervention groups but not for > 60 s. The overall daily walking duration and average steps per day had an influence on changes in the walking episodes between baseline and 6 months. Parameters of objective and subjective function explained a very small but significant amount of the variance.

CONCLUSION

The LiFE program seems to work on a behavioral rather than on a functional level. By accumulating short walking episodes, large gains in physical activity can potentially be achieved. This can be of health-promoting benefit especially for persons living in institutional settings or for those who are cautious or even anxious to undertake longer walking episodes (e.g., outdoors).

Comparison of falls and cost-effectiveness of the group versus individually delivered Lifestyle-integrated Functional Exercise (LiFE) program: final results from the LiFE-is-LiFE non-inferiority trial

BACKGROUND

the individually delivered Lifestyle-integrated Functional Exercise (LiFE) was shown to improve physical activity (PA) and reduce fall incidence, however being rather resource-consuming due to one-to-one delivery. A potentially less resource-intensive group format (gLiFE) was developed and compared against the original program, considering higher risk of falling due to possible PA enhancement.

OBJECTIVE

to investigate non-inferiority in terms of PA-adjusted fall risk and cost-effectiveness of gLiFE at 12-month follow-up.

DESIGN

single-blinded, randomised, multi-centre non-inferiority trial.

SETTING

community.

SUBJECTS

in total, 309 adults aged 70+ years at risk of or with history of falling; n = 153 in gLiFE, n = 156 in LiFE.

METHODS

LiFE was delivered one-to-one at the participants' homes, gLiFE in a group. PA-adjusted fall risk was analysed using negative binomial regression to compare incidence rate ratios (IRR). Cost-effectiveness was presented by incremental cost-effectiveness ratios and cost-effectiveness acceptability curves, considering quality-adjusted life years, PA and falls as effect measures. Secondary analyses included PA (steps/day) and fall outcomes.

RESULTS

non-inferiority was inconclusive (IRR 0.96; 95% confidence interval, CI 0.67; 1.37); intervention costs were lower for gLiFE, but cost-effectiveness was uncertain. gLiFE participants significantly increased PA (+1,090 steps/day; 95% CI 345 and 1.835) versus insignificant increase in LiFE (+569, 95% CI -31; 1,168). Number of falls and fallers were reduced in both formats.

CONCLUSION

non-inferiority of gLiFE compared with LiFE was inconclusive after 12 months. Increases in PA were clinically relevant in both groups, although nearly twice as high in gLiFE. Despite lower intervention costs of gLiFE, it was not clearly superior in terms of cost-effectiveness.

Willingness to pay for a group and an individual version of the Lifestyle-integrated Functional Exercise program from a participant perspective

BACKGROUND

Perceived benefits of intervention programs from a participant perspective can be examined by assessing their willingness to pay (WTP). Aiming to support decision-makers in their decision to implement a fall prevention program, this study examined (1) the WTP for a group-based and an individually delivered fall prevention program, (2) which factors influence WTP, and (3) whether the WTP exceeds the intervention costs.

METHODS

WTP was elicited using Payment Cards from 237 individuals who participated in a randomized non-inferiority trial (LiFE-is-LiFE) comparing a group version of the Lifestyle-integrated Functional Exercise program (gLiFE) with the individually delivered version (LiFE). Linear regression models were used to examine factors associated with WTP. The net benefit for (g)LiFE was calculated as the difference between WTP and intervention costs, assuming different scenarios of intervention costs (varying group sizes of gLiFE) and hypothetical subsidy levels by a payer (€0, €50, or €75).

RESULTS

The mean WTP was €196 (95% CI [172, 221]) for gLiFE and €228 (95% CI [204, 251]) for LiFE. In the linear regression model, WTP was significantly associated with delivery format (-€32, 95% CI [- 65, - 0.2], for gLiFE) and net household income (+ 68€, 95% CI [23, 113], for ≥€3000 compared to <€2000). The net benefit for gLiFE was positive in most cases. Due to higher intervention costs of LiFE compared to gLiFE (€298 vs. €113), the net benefit for LiFE was negative for the majority of the sample, even at a subsidy of €75.

CONCLUSION

The results provide insight into how valuable the interventions are perceived by the participants and thereby may be used by decision-makers as complement to cost-effectiveness analyses. WTP for both programs was generally high, probably indicating that participants perceived the intervention as quite valuable. However, further research is needed on the WTP and net benefit of fall prevention programs, as results relied on the specific context of the LiFE-is-LiFE trial.