Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Mostrar: 20 | 50 | 100
Resultados 1 - 5 de 5
Filtrar
Mais filtros

Base de dados
País/Região como assunto
Tipo de documento
Assunto da revista
País de afiliação
Intervalo de ano de publicação
1.
Gesundheitswesen ; 85(10): 895-903, 2023 Oct.
Artigo em Alemão | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-37253366

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: Although digital approaches for disease prevention in older people have a high potential and are being used more often, there are still inequalities in access and use. One reason could be that in technology development future users are insufficiently taken into consideration, or involved very late in the process using inappropriate methods. The aim of this work was to analyze the motivation of older people participating, and their perceptions of future participation in the research and development process of health technologies aimed at health care for older people. METHODOLOGY: Quantitative and qualitative data from one needs assessment and two evaluation studies were analyzed. The quantitative data were analyzed descriptively and the qualitative data were analyzed content-analytically with inductive-deductive category formation. RESULTS: The median age of the 103 participants (50 female) was 75 years (64-90), most of whom were interested in using technology and had prior experience of study participation. Nine categories for participation motivation were derived. A common motivation for participation was to promote and support their own health. Respondents were able to envision participation both at the beginning of the research process and at its end. In terms of technique development, different ideas were expressed, but there was a general interest in technological development. Methods that would enable exchange with others were favored most. CONCLUSIONS: Differences in motivation to participate and ideas about participation were identified. The results provide important information from the perspective of older people and complement the existing state of research.


Assuntos
Motivação , Humanos , Feminino , Idoso , Pessoa de Meia-Idade , Idoso de 80 Anos ou mais , Alemanha , Pesquisa Qualitativa , Seleção de Pacientes
3.
JMIR Mhealth Uhealth ; 10(3): e32212, 2022 03 23.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-35319484

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: Fewer than half of older German adults engage in the recommended levels of endurance training. OBJECTIVE: The study aim is to compare the acceptance and effectiveness of two interventions for physical activity (PA) promotion among initially inactive community-dwelling older adults ≥60 years in a 9-month, crossover randomized trial. METHODS: Participants were recruited in person and randomized to one of the following interventions for self-monitoring PA: a print-based intervention (PRINT: 113/242, 46.7%) or a web-based intervention (WEB: 129/242, 53.3%). Furthermore, 29.5% (38/129) of those in the web-based intervention group received a PA tracker in addition to WEB (WEB+). After randomization, the participants and researchers were not blinded. The participants' baseline intervention preferences were retrospectively assessed. All the intervention groups were offered 10 weekly face-to-face group sessions. Afterward, participants could choose to stay in their group or cross over to one of the other groups, and group sessions were continued monthly for another 6 months. 3D accelerometers to assess PA and sedentary behavior (SB) at baseline (T0), 3-month follow-up (T1), and 9-month follow-up (T2) were used. Adherence to PA recommendations, attendance of group sessions, and intervention acceptance were assessed using self-administered paper-based questionnaires. Linear mixed models were used to calculate differences in moderate to vigorous PA (MVPA) and SB between time points and intervention groups. RESULTS: Of the 242 initially recruited participants, 91 (37.6%) were randomized to the WEB group; 38 (15.7%) to the WEB+ group; and 113 (46.7%) to the PRINT group. Overall, 80.6% (195/242) of the participants completed T1. Only 0.4% (1/242) of the participants changed from the WEB group to the PRINT group and 6.2% (15/242) moved from the PRINT group to the WEB group (WEB-WEB: 103/249, (41.4%); PRINT-PRINT: 76/249, 30.5%) when offered to cross over at T1. Furthermore, 66.1% (160/242) of participants completed T2. MVPA in minutes per day increased between baseline and T1, but these within-group changes disappeared after adjusting for covariates. MVPA decreased by 9 minutes per day between baseline and T2 (ßtime=-9.37, 95% CI -18.58 to -0.16), regardless of the intervention group (WEB vs PRINT: ßgroup*time=-3.76, 95% CI -13.33 to 5.82, WEB+ vs PRINT: ßgroup*time=1.40, 95% CI -11.04 to 13.83). Of the participants, 18.6% (38/204) met the PA recommendations at T0, 16.4% (26/159) at T1, and 20.3% (28/138) at T2. For SB, there were no significant group differences or group-by-time interactions at T1 or T2. Intervention acceptance was generally high. The use of intervention material was high to moderate at T1 and decreased by T2. CONCLUSIONS: There was little movement between intervention groups at T1 when given the choice, and participation was not associated with increases in PA or decreases in SB over time. TRIAL REGISTRATION: German Clinical Trials Register DRKS00016073; https://www.drks.de/drks_web/navigate.do?navigationId=trial.HTML&TRIAL_ID=DRKS00016073.


Assuntos
Exercício Físico , Vida Independente , Idoso , Humanos , Internet , Estudos Retrospectivos , Comportamento Sedentário
4.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-32937840

RESUMO

The aim of this study was to assess physical activity and sedentary behavior, as well as the usage behavior, usability, acceptance, and motivational impact of an applied activity tracker among nursing home residents. Physical activity and usage behavior were measured among 22 residents (68 to 102 years) by use of a commercial activity tracker worn during waking hours for 77 days on average. Usability, acceptance, and motivational impact of the tracker were examined using an adapted questionnaire. Participants walked, on average, 1007 ± 806 steps per day and spent, on average, more than 9 h (77.2% of their waking time) sedentary. The average steps/day increased significantly within the first five weeks of wearing the activity tracker. The acceptance rate was high (94.4%). The tracker was used for 65.4% of the individual study period, and usage behavior did not significantly change during the first five wearing weeks. Participants with a usage time of ≥50% walked significantly more steps per day than those with a lower usage. Overall, we were able to reveal that the residents were highly inactive and sedentary. The results support the feasibility of a long-term application of activity trackers to assess or even increase physical activity behavior.


Assuntos
Exercício Físico , Monitores de Aptidão Física , Motivação , Idoso , Idoso de 80 Anos ou mais , Estudos de Viabilidade , Feminino , Humanos , Masculino , Casas de Saúde
5.
JMIR Res Protoc ; 9(4): e15168, 2020 Apr 27.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-32338622

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: Despite the known health benefits of physical activity (PA), less than half and less than one-third of older adults in Germany reach the PA recommendations for endurance training and strength training, respectively, of the World Health Organization. The aim of this study is to investigate the implementation and effectiveness over the course of 9 months of two interventions (information technology [IT]-based vs print-based) for PA promotion among initially inactive older adults in a randomized, crossover trial. This study is part of a large research consortium (2015-2021) investigating different aspects of PA promotion. The IT-based intervention was previously developed and refined, while the print-based intervention was newly developed during this funding phase. OBJECTIVE: We aim to compare the effectiveness and examine the preferences of study participants regarding both delivery modes. METHODS: Our target sample size was 390 initially inactive community-dwelling older adults aged ≥60 years at baseline (3-month follow-up [T1]: expected n=300; 9-month follow-up [T2]: expected n=240) who were randomized to one of two interventions for self-monitoring PA: IT-based (50%) or print-based (50%) intervention. In addition, 30% of the IT-based intervention group received a PA tracker. At T1, participants in both groups could choose whether they prefered to keep their assigned intervention or cross over to the other group for the following 6 months (T2). Participants' intervention preferences at baseline were collected retrospectively to run a post hoc matched-mismatched analysis. During the initial 3-month intervention period, both intervention groups were offered weekly group sessions that were continued monthly between T1 and T2. A self-administered questionnaire and 3D accelerometers were employed to assess changes in PA between baseline, T1, and T2. Adherence to PA recommendations, attendance at group sessions, and acceptance of the interventions were also tracked. RESULTS: The funding period started in February 2018 and ends in January 2021. We obtained institutional review board approval for the study from the Medical Association in Bremen on July 3, 2018. Data collection was completed on January 31, 2020, and data cleaning and analysis started in February 2020. We expect to publish the first results by the end of the funding period. CONCLUSIONS: Strategies to promote active aging are of particular relevance in Germany, as 29% of the population is projected to be ≥65 years old by 2030. Regular PA is a key contributor to healthy aging. This study will provide insights into the acceptance and effectiveness of IT-based vs print-based interventions to promote PA in initially inactive individuals aged ≥60 years. Results obtained in this study will improve the existing evidence base on the effectiveness of community-based PA interventions in Germany and will inform efforts to anchor evidence-based PA interventions in community structures and organizations via an allocation of permanent health insurance funds. TRIAL REGISTRATION: German Registry of Clinical Trials DRKS00016073; https://tinyurl.com/y983586m. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): DERR1-10.2196/15168.

SELEÇÃO DE REFERÊNCIAS
DETALHE DA PESQUISA