Otago Exercise Program Plus Cognitive Dual-task can Reduce Fall Risk,Improve Cognition and Functioning in Older Adults
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The risk of falling increases with neuromusculoskeletal and cognitive changes resulting from aging. Physical exercise shows beneficial effects on the risk of falling, but the results are unknown when associated with cognitive activity dual-task (DT). OBJECTIVE: The objective of the study was to evaluate the impacts of the Otago Exercise Program (OEP) plus DT cognitive activity on the risk of falling in older adults. METHODS: 36 older adults (83.5 ± 5.7 years) participated in a quasi-experimental study, distributed in two experimental groups and a control group: 1) OEP (OEPG; n=12), 2) OEP plus DT (OEPDTG; n = 12), and a control group (CG; n=12). Older adults were evaluated at pre- and post- 12 weeks of intervention. The thresholds for the risk of falling were considered as multiparameter scores of the 10 Meter Walking Test (10MWT), evocative 10MWT, Timed Up and Go (TUG), Sit to Stand Test (STS), and The Four-Stage Balance Test (Four-Stage), and the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA), to test the cognitive impairment. RESULTS: At baseline, all groups were homogeneous. Post-intervention, the experimental groups presented significant functional differences, in comparison to the CG, for 10MWT (OEPDTG: p= 0.002; OEPG: p= 0.002); evocative 10MWT (OEPDTG: p=0.001; OEPG: p=0.001); TUG (OEPDTG: p=0.034); STS (OEPDTG: p<0.001; OEPG: p<0.001) and cognitive for MoCA (OEPDTG: p<0.019). Significant intra-group differences (pre-post) were observed in all intervention groups, but none in CG. The risk of falling (Four-Stage) in experimental groups (OEPDTG: 33.3%; OEPG: 41.7%) was considerably lower than CG (83.3%). CONCLUSION: Otago Exercise Program alone can reduce the risk of falling due to improved functionality, but adding the dual task also improves cognitive capacity in older adults. The clinical significance of these interventions goes beyond statistics.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".