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
. 2024 Sep 9;24(1):747.
doi: 10.1186/s12877-024-05310-9.

The frail-LESS (LEss sitting and sarcopenia in frail older adults) remote intervention to improve sarcopenia and maintain independent living via reductions in sedentary behaviour: findings from a randomised controlled feasibility trial

Daniel P Bailey  1   2 , Jamie H Harper  3   4 , Cherry Kilbride  3   5 , Laura J McGowan  6 , Christina Victor  7 , Marsha L Brierley  3 , Angel M Chater  8   9
Affiliations
Randomized Controlled Trial

The frail-LESS (LEss sitting and sarcopenia in frail older adults) remote intervention to improve sarcopenia and maintain independent living via reductions in sedentary behaviour: findings from a randomised controlled feasibility trial

Daniel P Bailey et al. BMC Geriatr. .

Abstract

Background: Sarcopenia leads to functional disability, dependence in activities of daily living (ADL), and is a key contributor to frailty. Reducing and breaking up sedentary time is associated with improved sarcopenia and frailty-related outcomes. The aim of this study was to determine the feasibility of delivering and evaluating a remote sedentary behaviour intervention to improve sarcopenia and independent living in older adults with frailty.

Methods: A two-arm randomised controlled feasibility trial was conducted with a target of 60 older adults (mean age 74 ± 6 years) with very mild or mild frailty. Participants were randomised to the Frail-LESS (LEss Sitting and Sarcopenia in Frail older adults) intervention or usual care control group for six months. The intervention included tailored feedback on sitting, standing and stepping; an education workbook that included goal setting and action planning; one-to-one health coaching; peer support; and a wearable device to self-monitor sedentary behaviour. Participant recruitment (percentage of eligible individuals recruited), retention and data completion rates were used to assess trial feasibility. Acceptability of the trial was explored through interviews and safety was evaluated via unplanned healthcare utilisation and number of falls. Sitting, standing, stepping and sarcopenia were measured to evaluate potential intervention effects.

Results: Sixty participants were recruited. Recruitment and retention rates were 72% and 83%, respectively. Completion rates for outcome measures ranged from 70 to 100%. The trial was safe (< 1 fall per participant on average at each timepoint) and trial procedures were acceptable. Descriptive analysis (mean ± SD) showed that daily sitting was 25.1 ± 82.1 min/day lower in the intervention group, and 6.4 ± 60.5 min/day higher in the control group, at 6 months compared with baseline. Hand grip strength and sit-to-stand score were improved by 1.3 ± 2.4 kg and 0.7 ± 1.0, respectively, in the intervention group.

Conclusions: This study demonstrates the feasibility and safety of delivering and evaluating a remote intervention to reduce and break up sitting in older adults with frailty. The intervention showed evidence towards reducing daily sitting and improving sarcopenia, supporting its evaluation in a definitive randomised controlled trial.

Trial registration: ISRCTN registry (registration number: ISRCTN17158017). Registered 6th August 2021.

Keywords: Behaviour change; Feasibility study; Frailty; Physical function; Sarcopenia; Sedentary behaviour; Sitting.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare no competing interests.

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
Study flow diagram
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Fielding RA, Vellas B, Evans WJ, Bhasin S, Morley JE, Newman AB, et al. Sarcopenia: an undiagnosed condition in older adults. Current consensus definition: prevalence, etiology, and consequences. International working group on Sarcopenia. J Am Med Dir Assoc. 2011;12(4):249–56. 10.1016/j.jamda.2011.01.003 - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Patel HP, Syddall HE, Jameson K, Robinson S, Denison H, Roberts HC, et al. Prevalence of Sarcopenia in community-dwelling older people in the UK using the European Working Group on Sarcopenia in Older people (EWGSOP) definition: findings from the Hertfordshire Cohort Study (HCS). Age Ageing. 2013;42(3):378–84. 10.1093/ageing/afs197 - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Fernandes LV, Paiva AEG, Silva ACB, de Castro IC, Santiago AF, de Oliveira EP, et al. Prevalence of Sarcopenia according to EWGSOP1 and EWGSOP2 in older adults and their associations with unfavorable health outcomes: a systematic review. Aging Clin Exp Res. 2022;34(3):505–14. 10.1007/s40520-021-01951-7 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Tanimoto Y, Watanabe M, Sun W, Tanimoto K, Shishikura K, Sugiura Y, et al. Association of Sarcopenia with functional decline in community-dwelling elderly subjects in Japan. Geriatr Gerontol Int. 2013;13(4):958–63. 10.1111/ggi.12037 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Beaudart C, Zaaria M, Pasleau F, Reginster JY, Bruyere O. Health outcomes of Sarcopenia: a systematic review and Meta-analysis. PLoS ONE. 2017;12(1):e0169548. 10.1371/journal.pone.0169548 - DOI - PMC - PubMed

Publication types

LinkOut - more resources