RESUMO
Background: Older adults in long term care (LTC) spend over 90% of their day engaging in sedentary behaviour. Sedentary behaviour may exacerbate functional decline and frailty, increasing the risk for falls. The purpose of this study is to explore the impact of a 22-week standing intervention on falls among LTC residents at 12-month follow-up. Methods: This was a planned secondary analysis of the Stand if You Can randomized controlled trial. The original trial randomized 95 participants (n = 47 control; n = 48 intervention) to either a sitting control or a supervised standing intervention group (100 minutes/week) for 22 weeks. Falls data were available to be collected over 12 months post-intervention for 89 participants. The primary outcome was a hazard of fall (Yes/No) during the 12-month follow-up period. Results: A total of 89 participants (average age 86 years ± 8.05; 71.9% female) were followed for 12-months post-intervention. Participants in the intervention group (n=44) had a significantly greater hazard ratio of falls (2.01; 95% CI = 1.11 to 3.63) than the control group (n=45) when accounting for the history of falls, frailty status, cognition level, and sex. Conclusion: Participants who received a standing intervention over 22 weeks were twice as likely to fall 12 months after the intervention compared with the control group. However, the prevalence of falls did not surpass what would be typically observed in LTC facilities. It is imperative that future studies describe in detail the context in which falls happen and collect more characteristics of participants in the follow-up period to truly understand the association between standing more and the risk of falls.
RESUMO
Background and objectives: An increasing number of research studies point toward the importance and prevalence of long-term neurocognitive symptoms following infection with COVID-19. Our objectives were to capture the prevalence of cognitive impairments from 1 to 16 months post-COVID-19 infection, assess the changes in neuropsychological functions over time, and identify factors that can predict long-term deficits in cognition. Methodology: A cross-sectional research design was adopted to compare four sub-samples recruited over a 16-month timeframe (1-4, 5-8, 9-12, and 13-16 months). Phone interviews were conducted at least 6 weeks after being infected by COVID-19. Sociodemographic and clinical questionnaires were administered followed by standardized neurocognitive and psychological tests and health questionnaires screening cognitive symptoms, anxiety, depression, fatigue, and autonomy. Results: Regarding general health questionnaires, 55.2% of the 134 participants had symptoms of psychiatric illness, while 21.6% of patients had moderate-to-severe anxiety or depression. Cognitive efficiency was diminished in 19.4% of our population. Executive dysfunction was screened in 56% of patients, and an impairment of cognitive flexibility and inhibition was revealed in 38.8%. Depression, hospital or intensive care unit (ICU) admission, and the duration of hospital or ICU stay were associated with an inhibition deficit. The duration elapsed from the initial infection, and the neurocognitive assessment was not associated with a decrease in inhibition deficit. The prevalence of cognitive impairments, other than inhibition deficit, tended to decrease during the study period. Discussion: This study supports the extensive literature on the cognitive and neuropsychiatric sequelae of COVID-19 and highlights long-lasting inhibition deficits, while other cognitive functions seemed to improve over time. The severity of infection could interact as a catalyst in the complex interplay between depression and executive functions. The absence of a relation between inhibition deficits and sociodemographic or medical factors reinforces the need for cognitive screening in all COVID-19 patients. Future research should focus on inhibition deficits longitudinally to assess the progression of this impairment.
RESUMO
Older adults in long-term care are sedentary. Standing is recommended to reduce sedentary time, but there is limited research on long-term care residents' acceptability of standing interventions. The acceptability of the Stand If You Can (SIYC) randomized clinical trial among long-term care residents was explored using a single intrinsic qualitative case study design. The five month intervention consisted of supervised 100 min standing sessions per week. Participants completed post-intervention interviews, which were analyzed using the Thematic Framework Analysis through the lens of an acceptability framework. The 10 participants (7 female), age 73 to 102 years, stood a median of 53% of the intervention offered time (range 20%-94%). The participants reported acceptability in many aspects of the Theoretical Framework of Acceptability. Standing is a simple intervention to decrease sedentary time and seems to be accepted among long-term care residents when burden is not perceived as too high.