"TiC-TUG": technology in clinical practice using the instrumented timed up and go test-a scoping review.

Digitized assessments have a considerable potential to guide clinicial decision making and monitor progress and disease trajectories. The Timed Up and Go test (TUG) has been long established for assessment in geriatric medicine and instrumented versions (iTUG) have been developed and validated. This scoping review includes studies that applied the iTUG and aims to identify use cases to show where and how iTUG assessment could guide interventions and clinical management. The literature search was limited to peer-reviewed studies that performed pre- and post-intervention measurements with a 3-meter TUG instrumented with body-worn technology in samples of at least 20 subjects aged 60+ years. Of 3018 identified articles 20 were included. Four clinical use cases were identified: stratification for subsequent therapy, monitoring of disease or treatment-associated changes and evaluation of interventions in patients with idiopathic normal pressure hydrocephalus (1), and patients with Parkinson's disease (2); monitoring after joint replacement surgery (3), and evaluation after different exercise and rehabilitation interventions (4). The included studies show diversity in terms of iTUG technology and procedures. The identified use cases highlight clinical relevance and high potential for the clinical application of the iTUG. A consensual approach as well as comprehensive reporting would help to further exploit the potential of the iTUG to support clinical management. Future studies should investigate the benefits of segmental iTUG analysis, responsiveness and participants' perspectives on clinically meaningful changes in iTUG.

Comparison of falls and cost-effectiveness of the group versus individually delivered Lifestyle-integrated Functional Exercise (LiFE) program: final results from the LiFE-is-LiFE non-inferiority trial.

BACKGROUND: the individually delivered Lifestyle-integrated Functional Exercise (LiFE) was shown to improve physical activity (PA) and reduce fall incidence, however being rather resource-consuming due to one-to-one delivery. A potentially less resource-intensive group format (gLiFE) was developed and compared against the original program, considering higher risk of falling due to possible PA enhancement. OBJECTIVE: to investigate non-inferiority in terms of PA-adjusted fall risk and cost-effectiveness of gLiFE at 12-month follow-up. DESIGN: single-blinded, randomised, multi-centre non-inferiority trial. SETTING: community. SUBJECTS: in total, 309 adults aged 70+ years at risk of or with history of falling; n = 153 in gLiFE, n = 156 in LiFE. METHODS: LiFE was delivered one-to-one at the participants' homes, gLiFE in a group. PA-adjusted fall risk was analysed using negative binomial regression to compare incidence rate ratios (IRR). Cost-effectiveness was presented by incremental cost-effectiveness ratios and cost-effectiveness acceptability curves, considering quality-adjusted life years, PA and falls as effect measures. Secondary analyses included PA (steps/day) and fall outcomes. RESULTS: non-inferiority was inconclusive (IRR 0.96; 95% confidence interval, CI 0.67; 1.37); intervention costs were lower for gLiFE, but cost-effectiveness was uncertain. gLiFE participants significantly increased PA (+1,090 steps/day; 95% CI 345 and 1.835) versus insignificant increase in LiFE (+569, 95% CI -31; 1,168). Number of falls and fallers were reduced in both formats. CONCLUSION: non-inferiority of gLiFE compared with LiFE was inconclusive after 12 months. Increases in PA were clinically relevant in both groups, although nearly twice as high in gLiFE. Despite lower intervention costs of gLiFE, it was not clearly superior in terms of cost-effectiveness.

Changes in Psychological Determinants of Behavior Change after Individual versus Group-Based Lifestyle-integrated Fall Prevention: Results from the LiFE-is-LiFE Trial.

OBJECTIVE: The Lifestyle-integrated Functional Exercise (LiFE) intervention has been shown to promote physical activity in fall-prone older adults. However, the underlying mechanisms of how LiFE functions remain unclear. This study compares the effects of the individual and group-based LiFE formats on psychological determinants of behavior change derived from the health action process approach, habit formation theory, and self-determination theory. METHODS: Secondary analysis on basis of the randomized, non-inferiority LiFE-is-LiFE trial were performed. Questionnaire data on psychological determinants were obtained from older adults (M = 78.8 years, range 70-95) who took part in either the individual (n = 156) or the group-based (n = 153) LiFE intervention. Measurement points varied from three to six times, and from baseline (T1) up to a 12-month follow-up (T6). A generalized linear mixed model was specified for each determinant. RESULTS: Both LiFE and gLiFE participants reported lower levels of motivational determinants at T6. LiFE participants showed significantly higher values of action planning and coping planning at T6. Participants in both formats showed increased levels of action control at T6, whereas participants' habit strength decreased post-intervention but then stabilized over time. LiFE participants showed higher levels of autonomy, competence, and relatedness throughout the study, but levels of intrinsic motivation did not differ between formats and from T1 to T6. CONCLUSION: In both formats, but especially in the individual LiFE, the behavior change techniques used affected volitional rather than motivational or general determinants of behavior change. Habit strength as an important indicator of the sustainability of the LiFE exercises stabilized over time, indicating that participants, at least partly, sustained their formed habits long-term.

Developing habit-based health behaviour change interventions: twenty-one questions to guide future research.

OBJECTIVE: Habitual behaviours are triggered automatically, with little conscious forethought. Theory suggests that making healthy behaviours habitual, and breaking the habits that underpin many ingrained unhealthy behaviours, promotes long-term behaviour change. This has prompted interest in incorporating habit formation and disruption strategies into behaviour change interventions. Yet, notable research gaps limit understanding of how to harness habit to change real-world behaviours. METHODS: Discussions among health psychology researchers and practitioners, at the 2019 European Health Psychology Society 'Synergy Expert Meeting', generated pertinent questions to guide further research into habit and health behaviour. RESULTS: In line with the four topics discussed at the meeting, 21 questions were identified, concerning: how habit manifests in health behaviour (3 questions); how to form healthy habits (5 questions); how to break unhealthy habits (4 questions); and how to develop and evaluate habit-based behaviour change interventions (9 questions). CONCLUSIONS: While our questions transcend research contexts, accumulating knowledge across studies of specific health behaviours, settings, and populations will build a broader understanding of habit change principles and how they may be embedded into interventions. We encourage researchers and practitioners to prioritise these questions, to further theory and evidence around how to create long-lasting health behaviour change.

Effects of behavioral performance, intrinsic reward value, and context stability on the formation of a higher-order nutrition habit: an intensive longitudinal diary study.

BACKGROUND: Habits drive many of our health behaviors in our daily lives. However, little is known about the relative contribution of different key factors for habit formation in real-world contexts. We examined the effects of behavioral performance, intrinsic reward value (operationalized as tastiness), and context stability on the formation of a higher-order nutrition habit. METHODS: Participants were recruited via mailing lists and posts on social media platforms. N = 199 participants (Mage = 37.10 years, SD = 13.00, 86.93% female) received an online intervention for building the higher-order habit of filling half of their plates with vegetables at dinner and completed one daily online survey for up to 56 days, including the assessment of habit strength, behavioral performance, intrinsic reward value, and context stability, providing a total of N = 6352 daily measurements. N = 189 participants (N = 4175 measurements) could be included in the primary analysis. Utilizing multilevel modeling, we analyzed the impact of behavioral performance, intrinsic reward value, and context stability, as well as their interaction effects, on habit strength on the next day. RESULTS: Habit strength significantly increased over time. This effect was strengthened in persons with high mean levels of behavioral performance. Furthermore, mean levels of behavioral performance, intrinsic reward value, and context stability were all positively related to mean levels of habit strength. There were no positive effects of daily intraindividual variations in the three examined factors on habit strength at the next day. There was an unexpected negative effect of daily behavioral performance on habit strength at the next day. We found little to no evidence for our expected and pre-registered interaction effects. In an additional exploratory analysis, there were positive effects of daily intraindividual variations in the three factors on habit strength at the same day. CONCLUSIONS: We found that behavioral performance, intrinsic reward value, and context stability were all independent predictors of habit strength of a higher-order habit at the between-person level. However, we did not find the expected associations at the within-person level. Habit interventions should promote the consistent performance of the target behaviors in stable contexts. TRIAL REGISTRATION: https://aspredicted.org/blind.php?x=vu2cg4 . Registered 28.04.2020.

Group-Based and Individually Delivered LiFE: Content Evaluation and Predictors of Training Response - A Dose-Response Analysis.

Introduction: Lifestyle-integrated Functional Exercise (LiFE) is an effective, individually delivered fall prevention program but comes with substantial resource requirements; hence, a group-format was developed (gLiFE). This study 1) evaluates the program content of two different LiFE formats (group vs individual) and 2) examines the relationship between predictors of training response (dose) and improvements in balance, strength, and physical activity (PA) (response). Material and Methods: The analysis included n = 252 (gLiFE = 126, LiFE = 126) community-dwelling older adults (78.6±5.2 years). LiFE was administered in seven sessions either in a group (gLiFE: 8-12 participants) or individually at home (LiFE). Questionnaire-based, descriptive content evaluation (frequency distributions) included reported frequency of practice (days/week, number of activities), activity preferences, safety, intensity, integrability of activities, and acceptance after 6 months of LiFE practice. Predictors (ie, dose [reported frequency and intensity], safety, and integrability of activities) for improvements in balance, strength, and PA were analyzed using radar charts. Results: In both formats, 11.2 activities were practiced on average. Strength activities were more frequently selected than balance. Content evaluation showed some marginal advantages for the LiFE participants for selected aspects. The effects on balance, strength, and PA were nearly similar in both groups. Participants who performed balance activities more frequently (≥4 days/week) scored better in the balance and PA domain. Those who performed strength activities more frequently (≥4 days/week) performed better in all three outcomes. Higher perceived safety was associated with better performance. Those who reported activities as "not physically exhausting" performed better in all three outcomes. Those who found activities easily integrable into daily routines scored higher in the balance and strength domain. Discussion and Conclusion: Overall, both program formats are comparable with respect to content evaluation and effects. Participants need to perceive the activities as safe, not exhausting, and should practice ≥4 days/week to generate a high benefit from the intervention. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03462654. Registered on 12 March 2018.

Lifestyle-integrated functional exercise to prevent falls and promote physical activity: Results from the LiFE-is-LiFE randomized non-inferiority trial.

BACKGROUND: The 'Lifestyle-integrated Functional Exercise' (LiFE) program successfully reduced risk of falling via improvements in balance and strength, additionally increasing physical activity (PA) in older adults. Generally being delivered in an individual one-to-one format, downsides of LiFE are considerable human resources and costs which hamper large scale implementability. To address this, a group format (gLiFE) was developed and analyzed for its non-inferiority compared to LiFE in reducing activity-adjusted fall incidence and intervention costs. In addition, PA and further secondary outcomes were evaluated. METHODS: Older adults (70 + years) at risk of falling were included in this multi-center, single-blinded, randomized non-inferiority trial. Balance and strength activities and means to enhance PA were delivered in seven intervention sessions, either in a group (gLiFE) or individually at the participant's home (LiFE), followed by two "booster" phone calls. Negative binomial regression was used to analyze non-inferiority of gLiFE compared to LiFE at 6-month follow-up; interventions costs were compared descriptively; secondary outcomes were analyzed using generalized linear models. Analyses were carried out per protocol and intention-to-treat. RESULTS: Three hundred nine persons were randomized into gLiFE (n = 153) and LiFE (n = 156). Non-inferiority of the incidence rate ratio of gLiFE was inconclusive after 6 months according to per protocol (mean = 1.27; 95% CI: 0.80; 2.03) and intention-to-treat analysis (mean = 1.18; 95% CI: 0.75; 1.84). Intervention costs were lower for gLiFE compared to LiFE (-€121 under study conditions; -€212€ under "real world" assumption). Falls were reduced between baseline and follow-up in both groups (gLiFE: -37%; LiFE: -55%); increases in PA were significantly higher in gLiFE (+ 880 steps; 95% CI 252; 1,509). Differences in other secondary outcomes were insignificant. CONCLUSIONS: Although non-inferiority of gLiFE was inconclusive, gLiFE constitutes a less costly alternative to LiFE and it comes with a significantly larger enhancement of daily PA. The fact that no significant differences were found in any secondary outcome underlines that gLiFE addresses functional outcomes to a comparable degree as LiFE. Advantages of both formats should be evaluated in the light of individual needs and preferences before recommending either format. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The study was preregistered under clinicaltrials.gov (identifier: NCT03462654 ) on March 12th 2018.

Association between everyday walking activity, objective and perceived risk of falling in older adults.

BACKGROUND: older persons can be grouped according to their objective risk of falling (ORF) and perceived risk of falling (PRF) into 'vigorous' (low ORF/PRF), 'anxious' (low ORF/high PRF), 'stoic' (high ORF/low PRF) and 'aware' (high ORF/PRF). Sensor-assessed daily walking activity of these four groups has not been investigated, yet. OBJECTIVE: we examined everyday walking activity in those four groups and its association with ORF and PRF. DESIGN: cross-sectional. SETTING: community. SUBJECTS: N = 294 participants aged 70 years and older. METHODS: ORF was determined based on multiple independent risk factors; PRF was determined based on the Short Falls Efficacy Scale-International. Subjects were allocated to the four groups accordingly. Linear regression was used to quantify the associations of these groups with the mean number of accelerometer-assessed steps per day over 1 week as the dependent variable. 'Vigorous' was used as the reference group. RESULTS: average number of steps per day in the four groups were 6,339 ('vigorous'), 5,781 ('anxious'), 4,555 ('stoic') and 4,528 ('aware'). Compared with the 'vigorous', 'stoic' (-1,482; confidence interval (CI): -2,473; -491) and 'aware' (-1,481; CI: -2,504; -458) participants took significantly less steps, but not the 'anxious' (-580 steps; CI: -1,440; 280). CONCLUSION: we have integrated a digital mobility outcome into a fall risk categorisation based on ORF and PRF. Steps per day in this sample of community-dwelling older persons were in accordance with their ORF rather than their PRF. Whether this grouping approach can be used for the specification of participants' needs when taking part in programmes to prevent falls and simultaneously promote physical activity remains to be answered in intervention studies.

Group or individual lifestyle-integrated functional exercise (LiFE)? A qualitative analysis of acceptability.

BACKGROUND: The Lifestyle-integrated Functional Exercise (LiFE) program is an effective but resource-intensive fall prevention program delivered one-to-one in participants' homes. A recently developed group-based LiFE (gLiFE) could enhance large-scale implementability and decrease resource intensity. The aim of this qualitative focus group study is to compare participants' experiences regarding acceptability of gLiFE vs LiFE. METHODS: Programs were delivered in seven group sessions (gLiFE) or seven individual home visits (LiFE) within a multi-center, randomized non-inferiority trial. Four structured focus group discussions (90-100 min duration; one per format and study site) on content, structure, and subjective effects of gLiFE and LiFE were conducted. Qualitative content analysis using the method of inductive category formation by Mayring was applied for data analysis. Coding was managed using NVivo. RESULTS: In both formats, participants (N = 30, 22 women, ngLiFE = 15, nLiFE = 15, mean age 78.8 ± 6.6 years) were positive about content, structure, and support received by trainers. Participants reflected on advantages of both formats: the social aspects of learning the program in a peer group (gLiFE), and benefits of learning the program at home (LiFE). In gLiFE, some difficulties with the implementation of activities were reported. In both formats, the majority of participants reported positive outcomes and successful implementation of new movement habits. CONCLUSION: This is the first study to examine participants' views on and experiences with gLiFE and LiFE, revealing strengths and limitations of both formats that can be used for program refinement. Both formats were highly acceptable to participants, suggesting that gLiFE may have similar potential to be adopted by adults aged 70 years and older compared to LiFE. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov , NCT03462654 . Registered on March 12, 2018.

Applying Social Cognition Models to Explain Walking Duration in Older Adults: The Role of Intrinsic Motivation.

This study examined the applicability of the health action process approach (HAPA) to walking duration in older adults and the added value of extending the HAPA by intrinsic motivation. Self-reports from older adults (N = 309; Mage = 78.7, 70-95 years) regarding activity-related intrinsic motivation and HAPA variables were collected at the baseline of a fall prevention intervention study. Walking duration at ≥3 metabolic equivalents of task was measured for 7 days via body-worn accelerometers. Two structural equation models with walking duration as a manifest outcome were specified. In both models, the model fit was acceptable, but intention and planning were not associated with walking duration. Intrinsic motivation was significantly related to most HAPA variables and walking duration. Variance explained for walking duration was R2 = .14 in the HAPA and R2 = .17 in the extended model. For explaining older adults' walking duration, intrinsic motivation, but not HAPA-based intention and planning, seemed to be important.

Development of a conceptual framework for a group-based format of the Lifestyle-integrated Functional Exercise (gLiFE) programme and its initial feasibility testing.

BACKGROUND: The Lifestyle-integrated Functional Exercise (LiFE) programme is a fall prevention programme originally taught in a resource-intensive one-to-one format with limited feasibility for large-scale implementation. The aim of this paper is to present the conceptual framework and initial feasibility evaluation of a group-based LiFE (gLiFE) format developed for large-scale implementation. METHODS: The conceptual gLiFE framework (part I) is based on three pillars, LiFE Activities and Principles, Theory of Behaviour Change and Behaviour Change Techniques, and Instruction. The feasibility of gLiFE was tested (part II) within a multimodal approach including quantitative questionnaires measuring safety, acceptability (1 = best to 7 = insufficient), and adherence to the LiFE activities (range = 0-14) as well as a focus group interview. Exploratory self-reported measures on behaviour change including self-determined motivation (range = 1-5), intention, planning, action control, and habit strength (range = 1-6) were assessed pre and post intervention. Data analyses were performed using descriptive statistics and qualitative content analysis. RESULTS: The development process resulted in a manualised gLiFE concept containing standardised information on gLiFE's content and structure. Feasibility testing: Six older adults (median = 72.8 years, 5 female) completed the feasibility study and rated safety (median = 7.0, IQR = 0.3) and acceptability as high (median = 1, IQR = 1). Participants implemented 9.5 LiFE activities (IQR = 4.0) into their daily routines. No adverse events occurred during the study. In the focus group, the group format and LiFE activities were perceived as positive and important for maintaining strength and balance capacity. Self-determined motivation intention, planning, and habit strength were rated higher post intervention. CONCLUSION: The developed conceptual gLiFE framework represents the basis for a gLiFE format with potential for standardised large-scale implementation. Proof-of-concept could be demonstrated in a group of community-dwelling older adults at risk of falling. The public health potential of gLiFE in terms of (cost-)effectiveness is currently being evaluated in a large trial. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03412123. Registered on January 26, 2018.

Comparison of a group-delivered and individually delivered lifestyle-integrated functional exercise (LiFE) program in older persons: a randomized noninferiority trial.

BACKGROUND: The Lifestyle-Integrated Functional Exercise (LiFE) program is effective in improving strength, balance, and physical activity (PA) while simultaneously reducing falls in older people by incorporating exercise activities in recurring daily tasks. However, implementing the original LiFE program includes substantial resource requirements. Therefore, as part of the LiFE-is-LiFE project, a group format (gLiFE) of the LiFE program has been developed, which will be tested regarding its noninferiority to the individually delivered LiFE in terms of PA-adjusted fall incidence and overall cost-effectiveness. METHODS: In a multi-centre, single-blinded noninferiority trial, an envisaged sample of N = 300 participants (> 70 years; faller and/or confirmed falls risk; community-dwelling) will be randomized in either LiFE or gLiFE. Both groups will undergo the same strength and balance activities as well as PA promotion activities and habitualization strategies as described in the LiFE programme, however, based on different approaches of delivery: During the 6-month intervention phase, LiFE participants will receive seven home visits and two telephone calls; in gLiFE, the program will be delivered in seven group sessions and also two telephone calls. Main outcomes are a) fall incidence per PA and b) incremental cost-effectiveness ratio comparing costs and quality-adjusted life years between the two interventions. Secondary outcomes include PA behaviour, motor performance, health status, psychosocial status, program evaluation, and adherence. Measurements will be conducted at baseline, 6-month and 12-month follow-up; evaluation of intervention sessions and assessment of psychosocial variables related to execution and habitualization of LiFE activities will be made during the intervention period as well. DISCUSSION: Compared to LiFE, we expect gLiFE to (a) reduce falls per PA by a similar rate; (b) be more cost-effective; (c) comparably enhance physical performance in terms of strength and balance as well as PA. By investigating the economic and societal benefit, this study will be of high practical relevance as noninferiority of gLiFE would facilitate large-scale implementation due to lower resource usage. This would result in better reach and increased accessibility, which is important for subjects with a history of falls and/or being at risk of falls. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03462654 . Registered on March 12, 2018.