'Physical activity at home (PAAH)', evaluation of a group versus home based physical activity program in community dwelling middle aged adults: rationale and study design.

BACKGROUND: It is well recognised that the adoption and longer term adherence to physical activity by adults to reduce the risk of chronic disease is a challenge. Interventions, such as group and home based physical activity programs, have been widely reported upon. However few studies have directly compared these interventions over the longer term to determine their adherence and effectiveness. Participant preference for home based or group interventions is important. Some evidence suggests that home based physical activity programs are preferred by middle aged adults and provide better long term physical activity adherence. Physiotherapists may also be useful in increasing physical activity adherence, with limited research on their impact. METHODS: 'Physical Activity at Home' is a 2 year pragmatic randomised control trial, with a non-randomised comparison to group exercise. Middle-aged adults not interested in, or unable to attend, a group exercise program will be targeted. Sedentary community dwelling 50-65 year olds with no serious medical conditions or functional impairments will be recruited via two mail outs using the Australian federal electoral roll. The first mail out will invite participants to a 6 month community group exercise program. The second mail out will be sent to those not interested in the group exercise program inviting them to take part in a home based intervention. Eligible home based participants will be randomised into a 6 month physiotherapy-led home based physical activity program or usual care. Outcome measures will be taken at baseline, 6, 12, 18 and 24 months. The primary outcome is physical activity adherence via exercise diaries. Secondary outcomes include the Active Australia Survey, accelerometry, aerobic capacity (step test), quality of life (SF-12v2), blood pressure, waist circumference, waist-to-hip ratio and body mass index. Costs will be recorded prospectively and qualitative data will be collected. DISCUSSION: The planned 18 month follow-up post intervention will provide an indication of the effectiveness of the group and home based interventions in terms of adherence to physical activity, health benefits and cost. If the physiotherapy-led home based physical activity program is successful it could provide an alternative option for physical activity program delivery across a number of settings. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Australia and New Zealand Clinical Trials Register (ANZCTR): ACTRN12611000890932.

Community group exercise versus physiotherapist-led home-based physical activity program: barriers, enablers and preferences in middle-aged adults.

BACKGROUND/PURPOSE: Barriers and enablers of physical activity have been investigated, but it remains unclear what middle-aged adults' physical activity preferences are. Two physical activity interventions were compared to determine barriers, enablers and preferences for physical activity format in sedentary, community-dwelling 50- to 65-year-olds. METHODS: Using mixed methods, 37 Physical Activity at Home (PAAH) participants took part in focus groups at the end of the intervention period and completed the Active Australia Survey (AAS). Participants were divided into three sub-groups: (1) group exercise attendees (GA, n = 14); (2) group exercise non-attendees (GNA, n = 9); and (3) physiotherapist-led home-based physical activity program attendees (HB, n = 14). Focus groups were audio-taped, transcribed, coded and analysed using an inductive thematic approach. Thirty-seven exit telephone calls with GNA were included in the analysis. RESULTS: Cost, self-efficacy, work and carer commitments were major themes identified for GA and GNA. HB participants reported fewer barriers and a number of enablers, including flexibility of the program and physiotherapist instruction. HB and GNA were younger than GA (p< 0.05), more likely to be in paid employment and GNA participants were insufficiently active (p ≤ 0.01). All participants preferred some home-based physical activity, although a variety of formats was indicated. CONCLUSION: The barriers, enablers and preferences indicate that the physiotherapist-led home-based physical activity program with initial face-to-face contact and telephone support may increase the adoption and maintenance of physical activity in middle-aged adults, particularly for those not interested in, or unable to attend, group exercise.

Validating two self-report physical activity measures in middle-aged adults completing a group exercise or home-based physical activity program.

OBJECTIVES: To compare self-reported physical activity recorded in physical activity diaries or the Active Australia Survey with objectively measured physical activity using accelerometry in sedentary middle-aged adults completing two physical activity interventions. DESIGN: Cross-sectional study. METHODS: Sedentary 50-65 year olds were recruited to a non-randomized 6-month community group exercise program (G) or a physiotherapist-led home-based physical activity program (HB). Over 7-days, 76 participants (HB 39, G 37) wore an ActiGraph GT1M accelerometer (5s epochs), completed the Active Australia Survey (AAS) and a daily physical activity diary. Data were analysed using descriptive statistics and Spearman rank-order correlations. RESULTS: The two interventions had similar demographic and physical activity characteristics except that home-based participants were younger (p < 0.01), more likely to be employed full time (p ≤ 0.001) and reported less moderate-to-vigorous physical activity in the physical activity diaries compared to group exercise participants (HB 29 ± 21 min d(-1) vs. G 57 ± 35 min d(-1), p ≤ 0.001). Home-based participants had fair-to-good agreement between the physical activity diaries and AAS or ActiGraph data (r = 0.39-0.68, p < 0.05). Group exercise physical activity diary data did not correlate significantly with either the AAS or ActiGraph data. In contrast, group exercise AAS data had good correlations with ActiGraph data (r = 0.49-0.64, p ≤ 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Physical activity diaries should be interpreted cautiously unless intervention participants have an adequate understanding of physical activity intensity. The AAS is the preferred self-report measure in middle-aged adults independent of intervention.