@article{ref1,
title="Home-based exercise supported by general practitioner practices: ineffective in a sample of chronically ill, mobility-limited older adults (the HOMEfit randomized controlled trial)",
journal="Journal of the American Geriatrics Society",
year="2016",
author="Hinrichs, Timo and Bücker, Bettina and Klaaßen-Mielke, Renate and Brach, Michael and Wilm, Stefan and Platen, Petra and Mai, Anna",
volume="64",
number="11",
pages="2270-2279",
abstract="OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effects a home-based exercise program delivered to ill and mobility-limited elderly individuals on physical function, physical activity, quality of life, fall-related self-efficacy, and exercise self-efficacy. <br><br>DESIGN: Randomized controlled trial (ISRCTN Registry, Reg.-No. ISRCTN17727272). SETTING: Fifteen general practitioner (GP) practices and participants' homes. PARTICIPANTS: Chronically ill and mobility-limited individuals aged 70 and older (N = 209). INTERVENTIONS: An exercise therapist delivered the experimental intervention-a 12-week multidimensional home-based exercise program integrating behavioral strategies-in individual counseling sessions at the GPs' practices and over the telephone. The control intervention focused on promoting light-intensity activities of daily living. Interventions took place between February 2012 and March 2013. MEASUREMENTS: The primary outcome was functional lower body strength (chair-rise test). Secondary outcomes were physical function (battery of motor tests), physical activity (step count), health-related quality of life (Medical Outcomes Study 8-item Short-Form Survey), fall-related (Falls Efficacy Scale-International Version), and exercise self-efficacy (Selbstwirksamkeit zur sportlichen Aktivitaet (SSA) scale). Postintervention differences between the groups were tested using analysis of covariance (intention to treat; adjusted for baseline value and GP practice; significance level P ≤.05). <br><br>RESULTS: Participants had a mean age ± standard deviation of 80 ± 5, 74% were female, 87% had three or more chronic diseases, and 54% used a walking aid. The difference (intention to treat; experimental minus control) between adjusted postintervention chair-rise times was -0.1 (95% confidence interval = -1.8-1.7). Differences for all secondary outcomes were also nonsignificant. <br><br>CONCLUSION: The program was ineffective in the target population. Possibilities for improving the concept will have to be evaluated.<br><br>© 2016, Copyright the Authors Journal compilation © 2016, The American Geriatrics Society.<p /> <p>Language: en</p>",
language="en",
issn="0002-8614",
doi="10.1111/jgs.14392",
url="http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/jgs.14392"
}