Health-related quality of life after hip fracture: effects of a 12-month home-based exercise intervention-secondary analyses of an RCT.

PURPOSE: In this randomized controlled trial, we analyzed the effects of a 12-month home-based exercise intervention on the health-related quality of life (HRQoL) of patients with a hip fracture. METHODS: Participants (n = 121) aged ≥ 60 years, with a Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE) score of ≥ 12 and an operated hip fracture, were placed into Exercise (n = 61) or Usual care (n = 60) groups. Physiotherapist-supervised, home-based training was given twice a week over 12 months. HRQoL was assessed using the 15D instrument at baseline and at 3, 6, and 12 months. The total 15D scores and dimension scores were analyzed and compared to national age- and sex-matched reference data. RESULTS: The participants' mean age was 81 years (SD 7), 75% were women, and 61% had a femoral neck fracture. The mean within-group change in total 15D score over 12 months was 0.023 (95% CI: -0.003 to 0.048) in the Usual care group, and 0.028 (CI: 0.003 to 0.054) in the Exercise group (between-group p = 0.76). We found a statistically significant change in total 15D score in the Exercise group, as well as in the dimension scores of mobility and usual activities in both groups. All 15D scores remained below the general population reference level. CONCLUSION: Exercise training for 12 months did not enhance the HRQoL of home-dwelling patients with hip fractures any more than usual care. In addition, HRQoL remained below the population level in both groups.

Effects of Home-Based Physical Exercise on Days at Home, Health Care Utilization, and Functional Independence Among Patients With Hip Fractures: A Randomized Controlled Trial.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effects of a physical exercise program on days lived at home, the use and costs of health care and social services, mortality, and functional independence among patients with hip fractures. DESIGN: Randomized controlled trial with a parallel 2-group design consisting of a 12-month intervention and 12-month registry follow-up. SETTING: Home-based intervention. PARTICIPANTS: Patients aged ≥60 years (N=121) with operated hip fracture and who were living at home were randomized into physical exercise (n=61) and usual care (n=60) groups. INTERVENTIONS: Supervised physical exercise twice a week. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome was the number of days lived at home over 24 months. Secondary outcomes were the use and costs of health care and social services, mortality over 24 months, and Functional Independence Measure (FIM) over 12 months. RESULTS: Over 24 months, there was no significant difference between the groups in terms of days lived at home (incidence rate ratio, 1.01; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.90-1.14) or mortality (hazard ratio, 1.01; 95% CI, 0.42-2.43). The mean total costs of health care and social services did not differ between the groups. The costs per person-year were 1.26-fold (95% CI, 0.87-1.86) greater in the physical exercise group than in the usual care group over 12 months and 1.08-fold (95% CI, 0.77-1.70) over 24 months. The mean difference between the change in FIM of the groups over 12 months was 4.5 points (95% CI, 0.5-8.5; P=.029) in favor of the physical exercise group. CONCLUSIONS: Long-term home-based physical exercise had no effect on the number of days lived at home over 24 months among patients with hip fractures. The intervention was cost neutral over these 24 months. The FIM scores improved in both groups over 12 months, but the improvement was significantly greater in the physical exercise group than in the usual care group.

Workplace interventions for reducing sitting at work.

BACKGROUND: A large number of people are employed in sedentary occupations. Physical inactivity and excessive sitting at workplaces have been linked to increased risk of cardiovascular disease, obesity, and all-cause mortality. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effectiveness of workplace interventions to reduce sitting at work compared to no intervention or alternative interventions. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, OSH UPDATE, PsycINFO, ClinicalTrials.gov, and the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) search portal up to 9 August 2017. We also screened reference lists of articles and contacted authors to find more studies. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs), cross-over RCTs, cluster-randomised controlled trials (cluster-RCTs), and quasi-RCTs of interventions to reduce sitting at work. For changes of workplace arrangements, we also included controlled before-and-after studies. The primary outcome was time spent sitting at work per day, either self-reported or measured using devices such as an accelerometer-inclinometer and duration and number of sitting bouts lasting 30 minutes or more. We considered energy expenditure, total time spent sitting (including sitting at and outside work), time spent standing at work, work productivity and adverse events as secondary outcomes. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently screened titles, abstracts and full-text articles for study eligibility. Two review authors independently extracted data and assessed risk of bias. We contacted authors for additional data where required. MAIN RESULTS: We found 34 studies - including two cross-over RCTs, 17 RCTs, seven cluster-RCTs, and eight controlled before-and-after studies - with a total of 3,397 participants, all from high-income countries. The studies evaluated physical workplace changes (16 studies), workplace policy changes (four studies), information and counselling (11 studies), and multi-component interventions (four studies). One study included both physical workplace changes and information and counselling components. We did not find any studies that specifically investigated the effects of standing meetings or walking meetings on sitting time.Physical workplace changesInterventions using sit-stand desks, either alone or in combination with information and counselling, reduced sitting time at work on average by 100 minutes per workday at short-term follow-up (up to three months) compared to sit-desks (95% confidence interval (CI) -116 to -84, 10 studies, low-quality evidence). The pooled effect of two studies showed sit-stand desks reduced sitting time at medium-term follow-up (3 to 12 months) by an average of 57 minutes per day (95% CI -99 to -15) compared to sit-desks. Total sitting time (including sitting at and outside work) also decreased with sit-stand desks compared to sit-desks (mean difference (MD) -82 minutes/day, 95% CI -124 to -39, two studies) as did the duration of sitting bouts lasting 30 minutes or more (MD -53 minutes/day, 95% CI -79 to -26, two studies, very low-quality evidence).We found no significant difference between the effects of standing desks and sit-stand desks on reducing sitting at work. Active workstations, such as treadmill desks or cycling desks, had unclear or inconsistent effects on sitting time.Workplace policy changesWe found no significant effects for implementing walking strategies on workplace sitting time at short-term (MD -15 minutes per day, 95% CI -50 to 19, low-quality evidence, one study) and medium-term (MD -17 minutes/day, 95% CI -61 to 28, one study) follow-up. Short breaks (one to two minutes every half hour) reduced time spent sitting at work on average by 40 minutes per day (95% CI -66 to -15, one study, low-quality evidence) compared to long breaks (two 15-minute breaks per workday) at short-term follow-up.Information and counsellingProviding information, feedback, counselling, or all of these resulted in no significant change in time spent sitting at work at short-term follow-up (MD -19 minutes per day, 95% CI -57 to 19, two studies, low-quality evidence). However, the reduction was significant at medium-term follow-up (MD -28 minutes per day, 95% CI -51 to -5, two studies, low-quality evidence).Computer prompts combined with information resulted in no significant change in sitting time at work at short-term follow-up (MD -14 minutes per day, 95% CI -39 to 10, three studies, low-quality evidence), but at medium-term follow-up they produced a significant reduction (MD -55 minutes per day, 95% CI -96 to -14, one study). Furthermore, computer prompting resulted in a significant decrease in the average number (MD -1.1, 95% CI -1.9 to -0.3, one study) and duration (MD -74 minutes per day, 95% CI -124 to -24, one study) of sitting bouts lasting 30 minutes or more.Computer prompts with instruction to stand reduced sitting at work on average by 14 minutes per day (95% CI 10 to 19, one study) more than computer prompts with instruction to walk at least 100 steps at short-term follow-up.We found no significant reduction in workplace sitting time at medium-term follow-up following mindfulness training (MD -23 minutes per day, 95% CI -63 to 17, one study, low-quality evidence). Similarly a single study reported no change in sitting time at work following provision of highly personalised or contextualised information and less personalised or contextualised information. One study found no significant effects of activity trackers on sitting time at work.Multi-component interventions Combining multiple interventions had significant but heterogeneous effects on sitting time at work (573 participants, three studies, very low-quality evidence) and on time spent in prolonged sitting bouts (two studies, very low-quality evidence) at short-term follow-up. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: At present there is low-quality evidence that the use of sit-stand desks reduce workplace sitting at short-term and medium-term follow-ups. However, there is no evidence on their effects on sitting over longer follow-up periods. Effects of other types of interventions, including workplace policy changes, provision of information and counselling, and multi-component interventions, are mostly inconsistent. The quality of evidence is low to very low for most interventions, mainly because of limitations in study protocols and small sample sizes. There is a need for larger cluster-RCTs with longer-term follow-ups to determine the effectiveness of different types of interventions to reduce sitting time at work.

Workplace interventions for reducing sitting at work.

BACKGROUND: A large number of people are employed in sedentary occupations. Physical inactivity and excessive sitting at workplaces have been linked to increased risk of cardiovascular disease, obesity, and all-cause mortality. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effectiveness of workplace interventions to reduce sitting at work compared to no intervention or alternative interventions. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, OSH UPDATE, PsycINFO, ClinicalTrials.gov, and the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) search portal up to 9 August 2017. We also screened reference lists of articles and contacted authors to find more studies. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs), cross-over RCTs, cluster-randomised controlled trials (cluster-RCTs), and quasi-RCTs of interventions to reduce sitting at work. For changes of workplace arrangements, we also included controlled before-and-after studies. The primary outcome was time spent sitting at work per day, either self-reported or measured using devices such as an accelerometer-inclinometer and duration and number of sitting bouts lasting 30 minutes or more. We considered energy expenditure, total time spent sitting (including sitting at and outside work), time spent standing at work, work productivity and adverse events as secondary outcomes. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently screened titles, abstracts and full-text articles for study eligibility. Two review authors independently extracted data and assessed risk of bias. We contacted authors for additional data where required. MAIN RESULTS: We found 34 studies - including two cross-over RCTs, 17 RCTs, seven cluster-RCTs, and eight controlled before-and-after studies - with a total of 3,397 participants, all from high-income countries. The studies evaluated physical workplace changes (16 studies), workplace policy changes (four studies), information and counselling (11 studies), and multi-component interventions (four studies). One study included both physical workplace changes and information and counselling components. We did not find any studies that specifically investigated the effects of standing meetings or walking meetings on sitting time.Physical workplace changesInterventions using sit-stand desks, either alone or in combination with information and counselling, reduced sitting time at work on average by 100 minutes per workday at short-term follow-up (up to three months) compared to sit-desks (95% confidence interval (CI) -116 to -84, 10 studies, low-quality evidence). The pooled effect of two studies showed sit-stand desks reduced sitting time at medium-term follow-up (3 to 12 months) by an average of 57 minutes per day (95% CI -99 to -15) compared to sit-desks. Total sitting time (including sitting at and outside work) also decreased with sit-stand desks compared to sit-desks (mean difference (MD) -82 minutes/day, 95% CI -124 to -39, two studies) as did the duration of sitting bouts lasting 30 minutes or more (MD -53 minutes/day, 95% CI -79 to -26, two studies, very low-quality evidence).We found no significant difference between the effects of standing desks and sit-stand desks on reducing sitting at work. Active workstations, such as treadmill desks or cycling desks, had unclear or inconsistent effects on sitting time.Workplace policy changesWe found no significant effects for implementing walking strategies on workplace sitting time at short-term (MD -15 minutes per day, 95% CI -50 to 19, low-quality evidence, one study) and medium-term (MD -17 minutes/day, 95% CI -61 to 28, one study) follow-up. Short breaks (one to two minutes every half hour) reduced time spent sitting at work on average by 40 minutes per day (95% CI -66 to -15, one study, low-quality evidence) compared to long breaks (two 15-minute breaks per workday) at short-term follow-up.Information and counsellingProviding information, feedback, counselling, or all of these resulted in no significant change in time spent sitting at work at short-term follow-up (MD -19 minutes per day, 95% CI -57 to 19, two studies, low-quality evidence). However, the reduction was significant at medium-term follow-up (MD -28 minutes per day, 95% CI -51 to -5, two studies, low-quality evidence).Computer prompts combined with information resulted in no significant change in sitting time at work at short-term follow-up (MD -10 minutes per day, 95% CI -45 to 24, two studies, low-quality evidence), but at medium-term follow-up they produced a significant reduction (MD -55 minutes per day, 95% CI -96 to -14, one study). Furthermore, computer prompting resulted in a significant decrease in the average number (MD -1.1, 95% CI -1.9 to -0.3, one study) and duration (MD -74 minutes per day, 95% CI -124 to -24, one study) of sitting bouts lasting 30 minutes or more.Computer prompts with instruction to stand reduced sitting at work on average by 14 minutes per day (95% CI 10 to 19, one study) more than computer prompts with instruction to walk at least 100 steps at short-term follow-up.We found no significant reduction in workplace sitting time at medium-term follow-up following mindfulness training (MD -23 minutes per day, 95% CI -63 to 17, one study, low-quality evidence). Similarly a single study reported no change in sitting time at work following provision of highly personalised or contextualised information and less personalised or contextualised information. One study found no significant effects of activity trackers on sitting time at work.Multi-component interventions Combining multiple interventions had significant but heterogeneous effects on sitting time at work (573 participants, three studies, very low-quality evidence) and on time spent in prolonged sitting bouts (two studies, very low-quality evidence) at short-term follow-up. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: At present there is low-quality evidence that the use of sit-stand desks reduce workplace sitting at short-term and medium-term follow-ups. However, there is no evidence on their effects on sitting over longer follow-up periods. Effects of other types of interventions, including workplace policy changes, provision of information and counselling, and multi-component interventions, are mostly inconsistent. The quality of evidence is low to very low for most interventions, mainly because of limitations in study protocols and small sample sizes. There is a need for larger cluster-RCTs with longer-term follow-ups to determine the effectiveness of different types of interventions to reduce sitting time at work.

Workplace interventions for reducing sitting at work.

BACKGROUND: Office work has changed considerably over the previous couple of decades and has become sedentary in nature. Physical inactivity at workplaces and particularly increased sitting has been linked to increase in cardiovascular disease, obesity and overall mortality. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effects of workplace interventions to reduce sitting at work compared to no intervention or alternative interventions. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, OSH UPDATE, PsycINFO, Clinical trials.gov and the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) search portal up to 2 June, 2015. We also screened reference lists of articles and contacted authors to find more studies to include. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs), cluster-randomised controlled trials (cRCTs), and quasi-randomised controlled trials of interventions to reduce sitting at work. For changes of workplace arrangements, we also included controlled before-and-after studies (CBAs) with a concurrent control group. The primary outcome was time spent sitting at work per day, either self-reported or objectively measured by means of an accelerometer-inclinometer. We considered energy expenditure, duration and number of sitting episodes lasting 30 minutes or more, work productivity and adverse events as secondary outcomes. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently screened titles, abstracts and full-text articles for study eligibility. Two review authors independently extracted data and assessed risk of bias. We contacted authors for additional data where required. MAIN RESULTS: We included 20 studies, two cross-over RCTs, 11 RCTs, three cRCTs and four CBAs, with a total of 2180 participants from high income nations. The studies evaluated physical workplace changes (nine studies), policy changes (two studies), information and counselling (seven studies) and interventions from multiple categories (two studies). One study had both physical workplace changes and information and counselling components. We did not find any studies that had investigated the effect of periodic breaks or standing or walking meetings. Physical workplace changesA sit-stand desk alone compared to no intervention reduced sitting time at work per workday with between thirty minutes to two hours at short term (up to three months) follow-up (six studies, 218 participants, very low quality evidence). In two studies, sit-stand desks with additional counselling reduced sitting time at work in the same range at short-term follow-up (61 participants, very low quality evidence). One study found a reduction at six months' follow-up of -56 minutes (95% CI -101 to -12, very low quality evidence) compared to no intervention. Also total sitting time at work and outside work decreased with sit-stand desks compared to no intervention (MD -78 minutes, 95% CI -125 to -31, one study) as did the duration of sitting episodes lasting 30 minutes or more (MD -52 minutes, 95% CI -79 to -26, two studies). This is considerably less than the two to four hours recommended by experts. Sit-stand desks did not have a considerable effect on work performance, musculoskeletal symptoms or sick leave. It remains unclear if standing can repair the harms of sitting because there is hardly any extra energy expenditure.The effects of active workstations were inconsistent. Treadmill desks combined with counselling reduced sitting time at work (MD -29 minutes, 95% CI -55 to -2, one study) compared to no intervention at 12 weeks' follow-up. Pedalling workstations combined with information did not reduce inactive sitting at work considerably (MD -12 minutes, 95% CI -24 to 1, one study) compared to information alone at 16 weeks' follow-up. The quality of evidence was low for active workstations. Policy changesTwo studies with 443 participants provided low quality evidence that walking strategies did not have a considerable effect on workplace sitting time at 10 weeks' (MD -16 minutes, 95% CI -54 to 23) or 21 weeks' (MD -17 minutes, 95% CI -58 to 25) follow-up respectively. Information and counsellingCounselling reduced sitting time at work (MD -28 minutes, 95% CI -52 to -5, two studies, low quality evidence) at medium term (three months to 12 months) follow-up. Mindfulness training did not considerably reduce workplace sitting time (MD -2 minutes, 95% CI -22 to 18) at six months' follow-up and at 12 months' follow-up (MD -16 minutes, 95% CI -45 to 12, one study, low quality evidence). There was no considerable increase in work engagement with counselling.There was an inconsistent effect of computer prompting on sitting time at work. One study found no considerable effect on sitting at work (MD -17 minutes, 95% CI -48 to 14, low quality evidence) at 10 days' follow-up, while another study reported a significant reduction in sitting at work (MD -55 minutes, 95% CI -96 to -14, low quality evidence) at 13 weeks' follow-up. Computer prompts to stand reduced sitting at work by 14 minutes more (95% CI 10 to 19, one study) compared to computer prompts to step at six days' follow-up. Computer prompts did not change the number of sitting episodes that last 30 minutes or longer. Interventions from multiple categories Interventions combining multiple categories had an inconsistent effect on sitting time at work, with a reduction in sitting time at 12 weeks' (25 participants, very low quality evidence) and six months' (294 participants, low quality evidence) follow-up in two studies but no considerable effect at 12 months' follow-up in one study (MD -47.98, 95% CI -103 to 7, 294 participants, low quality evidence). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: At present there is very low to low quality evidence that sit-stand desks may decrease workplace sitting between thirty minutes to two hours per day without having adverse effects at the short or medium term. There is no evidence on the effects in the long term. There were no considerable or inconsistent effects of other interventions such as changing work organisation or information and counselling. There is a need for cluster-randomised trials with a sufficient sample size and long term follow-up to determine the effectiveness of different types of interventions to reduce objectively measured sitting time at work.

Workplace interventions for reducing sitting at work.

BACKGROUND: The number of people working whilst seated at a desk keeps increasing worldwide. As sitting increases, occupational physical strain declines at the same time. This has contributed to increases in cardiovascular disease, obesity and diabetes. Therefore, reducing and breaking up the time that people spend sitting while at work is important for health. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effects of workplace interventions to reduce sitting at work compared to no intervention or alternative interventions. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, OSH UPDATE, PsycINFO, Clinical trials.gov and the World Health Organization (WHO) search trial portal up to 14 February, 2014. We also searched reference lists of articles and contacted authors. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCT), cluster-randomised controlled trials (cRCTs), and quasi-randomised controlled trials of interventions to reduce sitting at work. For changes of workplace arrangements, we also included controlled before-and-after studies (CBAs) with a concurrent control group. The primary outcome was time spent sitting at work per day, either self-reported or objectively measured by means of an accelerometer coupled with an inclinometer. We considered energy expenditure, duration and number of sitting episodes lasting 30 minutes or more, work productivity and adverse events as secondary outcomes. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently screened titles, abstracts and full-text articles for study eligibility. Two review authors independently extracted data and assessed risk of bias. We contacted authors for additional data where required. MAIN RESULTS: We included eight studies, four RCTs, three CBAs and one cRCT, with a total of 1125 participants. The studies evaluated physical workplace changes (three studies), policy changes (one study) and information and counselling (four studies). No studies investigated the effect of treadmill desks, stepping devices, periodic breaks or standing or walking meetings. All the studies were at high risk of bias. The quality of the evidence was very low to low. Half of the studies were from Australia and the other half from Europe, with none from low- or middle-income countries. Physical workplace changesWe found very low quality evidence that sit-stand desks with or without additional counselling reduced sitting time at work per workday at one week follow-up (MD -143 minutes (95% CI -184 to -102, one study, 31 participants) and at three months' follow-up (MD - 113 minutes, 95% CI -143 to -84, two studies, 61 participants) compared to no intervention. Total sitting time during the whole day decreased also with sit-stand desks compared to no intervention (MD -78 minutes, 95% CI -125 to -30, one study, 31 participants) as did the duration of sitting episodes lasting 30 minutes or more (MD -52 minutes, 95% CI -79 to -26, two studies, 74 participants). Sit-stand desks did not have a considerable effect on work performance and had an inconsistent effect on musculoskeletal symptoms and sick leave. Policy changesWalking strategies had no considerable effect on sitting at work (MD -16 minutes, 95% CI -54 to 23, one study, 179 participants, low quality evidence). Information and counsellingGuideline-based counselling by occupational physicians reduced sitting time at work (MD -28 minutes, 95% CI -54 to -2, one study, 396 participants, low quality evidence). There was no considerable effect on reduction in total sitting time during the whole day.Mindfulness training induced a non-significant reduction in workplace sitting time (MD -2 minutes, 95% CI -22 to 18) at six months' follow-up and at 12 months' follow-up (MD -16 minutes, 95% CI -45 to 12, one study, 257 participants, low quality evidence).There was an inconsistent effect of computer prompting on sitting time at work. One study found no considerable effect on sitting at work (MD -18 minutes, 95% CI -53 to 17, 28 participants, low quality evidence) at 10 days' follow-up, while another study reported a significant reduction in sitting at work (MD -55 minutes, 95% CI -96 to -14, 34 participants, low quality evidence) at 13 weeks' follow-up. Computer prompting software also led to a non-significant increase in energy expenditure at work (MD 278 calories/workday, 95% CI 0 to 556, one study, 34 participants, low quality evidence) at 13 weeks' follow-up. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: At present there is very low quality evidence that sit-stand desks can reduce sitting time at work, but the effects of policy changes and information and counselling are inconsistent. There is a need for high quality cluster-randomised trials to assess the effects of different types of interventions on objectively measured sitting time. There are many ongoing trials that might change these conclusions in the near future.

Effects of a 12-month home-based exercise program on functioning after hip fracture - Secondary analyses of an RCT.

BACKGROUND: Long-term functional limitations are common after hip fractures. Exercise may alleviate these negative consequences but there is no consensus on an optimal training program. The objective was to study the effects of a 12-month home-based supervised, progressive exercise program on functioning, physical performance, and physical activity. METHODS: Secondary analysis of a randomized controlled trial targeting patients with surgical repair of a hip fracture, aged ≥60 years, Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE) score of ≥12. The participants were randomized into Exercise (n = 61) or Usual care (n = 60). Assessments at baseline, 3, 6, and 12 months included Lawton's Instrumental Activities of Daily Living (IADL), Short Physical Performance Battery (SPPB), handgrip strength, and self-reported frequency of sessions of leisure-time physical activity. Analyzed using mixed-effects models. RESULTS: Participants' (n = 121) mean age was 81 years (SD 7), and 75% were women. The mean IADL score at baseline was 17.1 (SD 4.5) in the exercise group, and 17.4 (5.1) in the usual care group. The mean SPPB scores were 3.9 (1.6) and 4.2 (1.8), and handgrip strength was 17.7 (8.9) kg and 20.8 (8.0) kg, respectively. The age- and sex-adjusted mean changes in IADL over 12 months were 3.7 (95% CI 2.8-4.7) in the exercise and 2.0 (1.0-3.0) in the usual care group (between-group difference, p = 0.016); changes in SPPB 4.3 (3.6-4.9) and 2.1 (1.5-2.7) (p < 0.001); and changes in handgrip strength 1.2 kg (0.3-2.0) and 1.0 kg (-1.9 to -0.2) (p < 0.001), respectively. We found no between-group differences in changes in the frequency of leisure-time activity sessions. CONCLUSION: A 12-month home-based supervised, progressive exercise program improved functioning and physical performance more than usual care among patients with hip fractures. However, the training did not increase leisure-time physical activity.

Effects of Home-Based Physical Exercise on Days at Home and Cost-Effectiveness in Pre-Frail and Frail Persons: Randomized Controlled Trial.

OBJECTIVES: Frailty increases the risks of hospitalization, institutionalization, and death. Our objective was to study the effects of home-based physical exercise on the number of days spent at home among pre-frail and frail persons, versus usual care. In addition, utilization and costs of health care and social services, cost-effectiveness, and health-related quality-of-life (HRQoL) were explored. DESIGN: Randomized controlled trial, with year-long supervised exercise for 60 minutes twice a week versus usual care. Follow-up for 24 months after randomization. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: A sample of 299 home-dwelling persons in South Karelia, Finland. Main inclusion criteria: ≥65 years, meeting at least 1 of the frailty phenotype criteria, Mini-Mental State Examination score ≥17. METHODS: Primary outcome, days spent at home over 24 months, was calculated deducting days in inpatient care, in nursing homes, and days after death. HRQoL was assessed (15D questionnaire) at baseline and at 3, 6, and 12 months. Utilization data were retrieved from medical records. RESULTS: The participants' mean age was 82.5 (SD 6.3), 75% were women, 61% were pre-frail and 39% frail. After 24 months, there was no difference between groups in days spent at home [incidence rate ratio 1.03; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.98-1.09]. After 12 months, the costs per person-year were 1.60-fold in the exercise group (95% CI 1.23-1.98), and after 24 months, 1.23-fold (95% CI 0.95-1.50) versus usual care. Over 12 months, the exercise group gained 0.04 quality-adjusted life-years and maintained the baseline 15D level, while the score in the usual care group deteriorated (P for group <.001, time 0.002, interaction 0.004). CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS: Physical exercise did not increase the number of days spent at home. Exercise prevented deterioration of HRQoL, and in the frail subgroup, all intervention costs were compensated with decreased utilization of other health care and social services over 24 months.

The Impact of Obesity in the Workplace: a Review of Contributing Factors, Consequences and Potential Solutions.

This narrative review summarized findings from previous reviews and the most recently published studies, regarding the following: (1) the association between two occupational risk factors-shift work and sedentary work-and obesity, (2) the effects of obesity on workplace productivity and (3) the effectiveness of workplace interventions aimed at preventing or reducing obesity. Despite some inconsistencies in findings, there is convincing evidence that shift work increases the risk of obesity, while most studies did not show a significant association between sedentary work and obesity. Overweight and obesity were found to be associated with absenteeism, disability pension and overall work impairment, whilst evidence of their relationship with presenteeism, unemployment and early retirement was not consistent. Due to the vast heterogeneity in the types of workplace-based interventions to prevent or treat obesity, no sound conclusions can as yet be drawn about their overall effectiveness and best practice recommendations for their implementation.

Effects of a weight maintenance program with or without exercise on the metabolic syndrome: a randomized trial in obese men.

BACKGROUND: Weight maintenance (WM) after weight reduction (WR) is difficult, but increased physical activity may help. We studied whether adding exercise to diet counseling decreases the occurrence of the metabolic syndrome (MBO). METHODS: Ninety voluntary middle-aged men with a BMI range of 30-40 and a waist girth >100 cm were recruited to the research institute's clinic in 1997. After a very-low-energy diet for 2 months (WR), the men were randomized into a walking, resistance training or control group for 6 months (WM). All groups received similar dietary advice. After WM, there was a 23-month follow-up. Diagnosis of MBO was based on >or= 3 components. RESULTS: After WR, the mean weight loss was 14.2 kg. At the end, the weight decrease was 4.8 kg (n = 68) with no statistically significant difference between the groups. All groups had improved some components (insulin, HDL cholesterol, body composition) of MBO. When the groups were combined, the odds ratio for the occurrence of MBO (vs. baseline) was 0.10 after WR, 0.08 after WM and 0.29 at the end. CONCLUSIONS: Adding structured exercise to diet counseling did not alleviate MBO better than diet only. However, the occurrence of MBO was reduced in all groups at the end.