Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Randomized Controlled Trial
. 2019 Aug 30;19(1):240.
doi: 10.1186/s12877-019-1246-4.

An augmented prescribed exercise program (APEP) to improve mobility of older acute medical patients - a randomized, controlled pilot and feasibility trial

Affiliations
Randomized Controlled Trial

An augmented prescribed exercise program (APEP) to improve mobility of older acute medical patients - a randomized, controlled pilot and feasibility trial

Tobias Braun et al. BMC Geriatr. .

Abstract

Background: There is inconclusive evidence for the effectiveness of additional exercise in older hospital patients. The aims of this study were (1) to assess the feasibility of an augmented prescribed exercise program (APEP) in older acute medical patients and (2) to measure the potential effects of APEP on mobility capacity in order to assess the feasibility of a large full-scale study.

Methods: We conducted a single-center, prospective, parallel-group, single-blinded, randomized (1:1) controlled pilot and feasibility trial. Participants were recruited from acute geriatric wards of a general hospital. Key inclusion criteria were: age ≥ 65 years and walking ability. Key exclusion criteria were severe cognitive impairment and medical restriction for physical exercise interventions. Both groups received usual care, including physiotherapy. Intervention group participants were scheduled for additional exercise sessions (20-30 min, 4-5x/week). Feasibility of the trial design was assessed along pre-defined criteria for process, resources and management. Feasibility of the APEP intervention was analyzed by means of adherence, compliance and safety. Outcomes were measured at baseline and prior to hospital discharge. The primary outcome was mobility capacity (de Morton Mobility Index; DEMMI). Secondary outcomes were walking ability, physical endurance, fear of falling, frailty and length of stay.

Results: Thirty-five participants were recruited (recruitment rate 20.3%). We lost 7 participants to follow-up (retention rate: 80%). Intervention group participants (n = 17) each participated in 5.3 ± 2.2 additional exercise sessions (mean duration: 23.2 ± 4.0 min; mean adherence rate 78% ± 26%). No severe adverse events occurred during study assessments or APEP sessions. There were no statistically significant differences in mean change scores in any outcome measure. A sample of 124 participants would be required to detect a difference of 4 DEMMI points (ES = 0.45) with a power of 80%.

Conclusions: This small feasibility RCT indicates that an APEP intervention may be safe and feasible in older acute medical patients. APEP may possibly induce small to moderate effects on mobility, but the clinical relevance of these effects may be limited. These results inform the planning of a larger-scale phase III study.

Trial registration: German Clinical Trials Register ( DRKS00011262 ). Registered 27 October 2016.

Keywords: Exercise therapy; Hospitalization; Mobility limitation; Physiotherapy; Rehabilitation.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
Participants’ flow through the trial
Fig. 2
Fig. 2
Distribution of de Morton Mobility Index scores
Fig. 3
Fig. 3
Overview of augmented prescribed exercise program (APEP) sessions with reasons for non-adherence and for abandonment
Fig. 4
Fig. 4
Number of scheduled and performed augmented prescribed exercise program (APEP) sessions per participant according to the duration of each participant’s individual intervention period. Participant #119 withdrew from the study without performing any APEP session or the follow-up assessment

Similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. Fisher S, Ottenbacher KJ, Goodwin JS, Graham JE, Ostir GV. Short Physical Performance Battery in hospitalized older adults. Aging Clin Exp Res. 2009;21:445–452. doi: 10.1007/BF03327444. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Hubbard RE, Eeles EMP, Rockwood MRH, Fallah N, Ross E, Mitnitski A, Rockwood K. Assessing balance and mobility to track illness and recovery in older inpatients. J Gen Intern Med. 2011;26:1471–1478. doi: 10.1007/s11606-011-1821-7. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Warshaw GA. Functional Disability in the Hospitalized Elderly. JAMA. 1982;248:847. doi: 10.1001/jama.1982.03330070035026. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Callen BL, Mahoney JE, Wells TJ, Enloe M, Hughes S. Admission and discharge mobility of frail hospitalized older adults. Medsurg Nurs. 2004;13:156–163. - PubMed
    1. Ostir GV, Berges I, Ottenbacher KJ, Fisher SR, Barr E, Hebel JR, Guralnik JM. Gait Speed and Dismobility in Older Adults. Archives of Physical. Med Rehabil. 2015;96:1641–1645. doi: 10.1016/j.apmr.2015.05.017. - DOI - PubMed

Publication types

Associated data