Resistance Bands Training In Preclinically Mobility Limited Older Adults: A Randomized Control Trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Resistance training (RT) is critical for maintaining physical function, health, and independence in older adults. Unfortunately, RT participation is low amongst older adults with noted barriers, including fear of injury, lack of knowledge, and limited access to exercise facilities. Accessible low-risk equipment (resistance bands) and a faded contact approach (transitioning participants from in-person training to independent training) may allow older adults to perform RT safely and effectively. PURPOSE: We aimed to determine the effectiveness of an 18-week faded contact resistance bands training program on the physical function of community-dwelling preclinically mobility-limited older adults. METHODS: This randomized control trial (RCT) compared self-reported preclinical mobility-limited older adults (≥70 years) in a resistance bands training (RT) group or control group (CON). Trained registered kinesiologists delivered the twice weekly, 18-week faded contact group-based resistance band program in three phases (in-person, hybrid, and online). Physical function was assessed using the short performance physical battery (SPPB), 4-metre walk, timed up and go (TUG), 6-minute walk test (6MWT), and 5 times sit-to-stand pre-and-post-intervention. RESULTS: Fifty-six older adults (76 ± 4 years; 69% women; 28 ± 4 kg/m2) were randomized (RT, n = 30; CON, n = 26). Adherence to the intervention was 91%. We observed no between-group differences for the SPPB, 4 m walk, TUG, and 6MWT compared to CON (p > 0.05); however, a significant main effect of time was observed for each measure (p < 0.05). A significant interaction was observed for the 5 times sit-to-stand (RT: pre = 13.8 ± 3.4; post = 10.5 ± 2.0; CON: pre = 12.8 ± 2.7; post = 11.4 ± 2.2; p = 0.01). Within group minimal clinically important differences (MCID) for the RT group were found in the SPPB scores (+1.2 points) and the 4 m walk (-0.1 m/s). CONCLUSION: We provided preliminary insight into the efficacy of an 18-week faded contact resistance bands training program delivered by exercise and health professionals for preclinical mobility-limited older adults. We demonstrated an MCID in the SPPB and the 4 m walk in the RT group alone. Given the high adherence and clinically relevant effects, we propose that this program could be implemented on a broader scale in a larger RCT. Supported by: McMaster Institute for Research on Aging (MIRA)
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".