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
. 2021 Oct 1;21(1):520.
doi: 10.1186/s12877-021-02450-0.

Impact of the HOP-UP-PT program on older adults at risk to fall: a randomized controlled trial

Sara K Arena  1 , Christopher M Wilson  2 , Lori Boright  2 , Edward Peterson  3
Affiliations
Randomized Controlled Trial

Impact of the HOP-UP-PT program on older adults at risk to fall: a randomized controlled trial

Sara K Arena et al. BMC Geriatr. .

Abstract

Background: Reduced falls and fall risks have been observed among older adults referred to the HOP-UP-PT (Home-based Older Persons Upstreaming Prevention-Physical Therapy) program. The purpose of this study was to describe outcomes of HOP-UP-PT program participants and then to compare these outcomes to non-participants.

Methods: Six Michigan senior centers referred adults ≥65 years who were at-risk for functional decline or falls. 144 participants (n = 72 per group) were randomized to either the experimental group (EG) or the control group (CG). Physical therapists (PTs) delivered physical, environmental, and health interventions to the EG over nine encounters (six in-person, three telerehabilitation) spanning seven months. The CG participants were told to continue their usual physical activity routines during the same time frame. Baseline and re-assessments were conducted at 0-, 3-, and 7-months in both groups. Descriptions and comparisons from each assessment encounter were analyzed.

Results: Participants ages were: EG = 76.6 (7.0) years and CG = 77.2 (8.2). Baseline measures were not significantly different apart from the Short Physical Performance Battery (SPPB) which favored the EG (P = 0.02). While no significant differences were identified in the survey outcomes or home environment assessments, significant differences in favor of the EG were identified in common fall risk indicators including the Timed Up and Go (P = 0.04), Four Test Balance Scale (P = 0.01), and the modified SPPB (P = 0.02) at the 3-month assessment visit. However, these differences were not sustained at the 7-month assessment as, notably, both groups demonstrated positive improvements in the Four Test Balance Score and SPPB. For individuals at a moderate/high fall risk at baseline, 47.8% of CG reported falling at seven months; whereas, only 6.3% of EG participants meeting the same criteria reported a fall after HOP-UP-PT participation.

Conclusions: A prevention-focused multimodal program provided by PTs in older adults' homes proved beneficial and those with the highest fall risk demonstrated a significant decrease in falls. A collaboration between PTs and community senior centers resulted in upstreaming care delivery that may reduce both the financial and personal burdens associated with falls in an older adult population.

Trial registration: This study was retrospective registered at Clinical Trials.gov , TRN: NCT04814459 on 24/03/2021.

Keywords: Falling; Home-based; Independent living; Older adult; Physical therapy; Prevention; Upstreaming.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

SA and CW are co-principals of HOP-UP-PT, LLC. No financial transactions have occurred within HOP-UP-PT, LLC to date; however, there is a possibility for future fiscal viability thereby producing a potential financial conflict of interest. They declare no personal conflicts.

LB and EP declare no financial or personal conflicts.

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
Key assessments and interventions performed during each encounter
Fig. 2
Fig. 2
CONSORT Flow Diagram
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Wiles JL, Leibing A, Guberman N, Reeve J, Allen RES. The meaning of “aging in place” to older people. Gerontologist [Internet] 2012;52(3):357–66. Available from: https://academic.oup.com/gerontologist/article-lookup/doi/10.1093/geront... - DOI - PubMed
    1. Bendixen RM, Levy CE, Olive ES, Kobb RF, Mann WC. Cost effectiveness of a Telerehabilitation program to support chronically ill and disabled elders in their homes. Telemed e-Health [Internet] 2009;15(1):31–8. Available from: https://www.liebertpub.com/doi/10.1089/tmj.2008.0046 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Graybill EM, McMeekin P, Wildman J. Can Aging in Place Be Cost Effective? A Systematic Review. Quinn TJ, editor. PLoS One [Internet]. 2014 24;9(7):e102705. Available from: https://dx.plos.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0102705 - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Mann WC. Effectiveness of assistive technology and environmental interventions in maintaining Independence and reducing home care costs for the frail elderly: a randomized controlled trial. Arch Fam Med [Internet] 1999;8(3):210–7. Available from: http://archfami.ama-assn.org/cgi/doi/10.1001/archfami.8.3.210 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Michel J-P, Cruz-Jentoft AJ, Cederholm T. Frailty, exercise and nutrition. Clin Geriatr Med [Internet] 2015;31(3):375–87. Available from: https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0749069015000300, DOI: 10.1016/j.cger.2015.04.006 - PubMed

Publication types

Associated data