MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W4416541127 · doi:10.1519/jpt.0000000000000478

Feasibility and Effects of Synchronous Online vs. Face-to-Face Multicomponent Physical Exercise in Older Nursing Home Residents: A Pilot Randomized Controlled Trial

2025· article· en· W4416541127 sur OpenAlexaboutno aff
Aida Ruiz-Fernández, Jon Irazusta, Andrea Martín-Pérez, Ander Espin, Ana Carbonell‐Baeza, Asier Mañas, Ana Rodriguez‐Larrad, Miriam Urquiza

Notice bibliographique

RevueJournal of Geriatric Physical Therapy · 2025
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineHealth Professions
ThématiqueBalance, Gait, and Falls Prevention
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésRandomized controlled trialPsychological interventionBalance (ability)Quality of life (healthcare)Nursing homes

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: While evidence supports the feasibility and benefits of online exercise programs for community-dwelling older adults, there is a lack of research on their use among nursing home (NH) residents. This pilot randomized controlled trial aimed to (i) evaluate the feasibility of a synchronous online (SO) group-based supervised physical exercise intervention, and (ii) explore the comparative effects of SO versus face-to-face (F2F) group-based programs on the physical, mental, and quality-of-life outcomes of older people living in NH. METHOD: Twelve older people were randomly assigned to SO (n = 6) or F2F groups (n = 6). Both interventions consisted of a 12-week moderate-intensity multicomponent supervised physical exercise program performed twice per week, including balance, strength, and aerobic exercises guided by a physiotherapist.Feasibility was assessed based on adherence (completion, attendance, and compliance) and exercise program characteristics (session mean duration, exercises per workout, intensity mean of resistance and aerobic exercises measured by OMNI scale, and dose modifications). Moreover, safety was monitored by reporting adverse events and participants' satisfaction level was assessed with a 0-10 visual analog scale and the Basic Psychological Needs in Exercise scale. The preliminary effects of the programs were evaluated including physical, mental, and quality-of-life assessments. Physical assessment measurement included the Short Physical Performance Battery (SPPB), the arm curl, the 8 Foot-Up and Go (8FUG) and the 2 Minute Walk (2MWT) tests. The mental assessment included cognitive assessment with the Trail Making Test-part A (TMTa) and the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA). Depression was evaluated by the Yesavage 15-item Geriatric Depression Scale (GDS-15) and anxiety with the Zung Self-Rating Anxiety Scale (SAS). The unpaired Student's t - and chi 2 tests were used to assess between-group differences at baseline and at completion. Between-group comparisons were performed using Student t - or chi 2 tests .Within-group comparisons were conducted using paired t -tests, and mixed-design ANCOVA (with baseline values as covariates) was used to calculate group × time interactions. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION: All participants in both groups completed the intervention with high levels of attendance and compliance rates. Intervention characteristics differed between groups, with significantly shorter duration of F2F sessions (49 min) compared to SO group (59 min) ( P < .001). Perceived cardiovascular intensity and satisfaction were significantly higher in the F2F group ( P = .020). Both groups showed significant improvements in the SPPB (SO P = .038; F2F P = .049) and the arm curl tests (SO P = .009; F2F P = .004), with only the F2F group showing significant improvement in the 8FUG test ( P = .041). Geriatric Depression Scale scores improved significantly only in the SO group ( P = .044) and quality of life improved significantly more in the F2F group compared to the SO group ( P = .035). CONCLUSIONS: This pilot randomized controlled trial showed that a SO group-based physical exercise program is feasible and safe for older adults residing in NH. Preliminary findings suggest that both interventions could be beneficial to improve physical and mental health. However, significant within-group improvements in dynamic balance (8FUG) were observed only in the F2F intervention, along with a group × time interaction favoring F2F for quality of life.

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction distillée sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,002
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Essai randomisé · Signal consensuel: Essai randomisé
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,145
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,804

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0020,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0030,001
Bibliométrie0,0000,000
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0000,000
Communication savante0,0000,000
Science ouverte0,0000,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0000,001
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0000,000

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,018
Tête enseignante GPT0,373
Écart entre enseignants0,355 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
Devis d'étudeEssai randomisé
Domainenon disponible
GenreEmpirique

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations0
Publié2025
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueJournal of Geriatric Physical TherapyMême sujetBalance, Gait, and Falls PreventionTravaux en français237 207