Do sedentary older adults benefit from community-based exercise? Results from the Active Start program.

Davis School of Gerontology, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA 90089-0191, USA.
The Gerontologist (Impact Factor: 2.48). 08/2009; 49(6):847-55. DOI: 10.1093/geront/gnp113
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT This study assessed the effectiveness of Active Start, a community-based behavior change and fitness program, designed to promote physical activity among sedentary community-dwelling older adults.
A quasi-experimental design was used. Data were analyzed using a within-group pretest-post-test design to calculate changes in the intervention group and changes in the waitlist comparison group. Further analyses were conducted after the comparison group completed the intervention. Paired t tests were employed to analyze unadjusted mean changes in physical performance measures from pretest to post-test. Repeated measures analysis of covariance (using SAS Proc Mixed) was then conducted to calculate the adjusted mean change for the intervention group.
Significant improvement was found on all performance measures (strength, flexibility, and balance) for the intervention group as a whole. Similar improvements were found among subgroups (Whites, African Americans, and Hispanics). No significant changes were found in the comparison group when they were in the control condition; however, they significantly improved on all measures after completing the intervention.
This study suggests that a community-based physical activity program benefits sedentary, racially, and ethnically diverse older adults by coupling a behavioral change support group and fitness classes.

  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: This review extends findings from four previous reviews of physical activity (PA) interventions among African Americans (AA) and includes papers published between January 2009 and August 2013. Eligible papers were retrieved using strategies employed in previous reviews. Overall, 16 relevant papers were identified, including four pilot studies and 12 full trials. Interventions were based on a variety of behavioural sciences theories. The most common setting for interventions was churches. Most interventions lasted >6 months; few interventions included >6 months of post-intervention follow-up. Overall, studies identified within-group differences showing positive improvements in PA, and most studies showed statistically significant between-group differences in at least one measure of PA. A quality score was used to rate various elements of the studies and provide a numerical assessment of each paper; scores ranged from 3 to 10 out of 13 possible points. The current review indicates a continued need for studies that use objective PA measures, assess long-term intervention impact, provide specific PA goals for interventions, include more attention to strategies that can increase retention and adherence among AA study participants, include AA men and determine the independent and synergistic effects of individual and environmental (socio-cultural and built) change strategies.
    Obesity Reviews 10/2014; 15(S4). DOI:10.1111/obr.12205 · 7.86 Impact Factor
  • 05/2014; 45(3):133-141. DOI:10.1080/19325037.2014.893851
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Best practice physical activity guidelines for older adults recommend multicomponent physical activity programs that incorporate behavioral change strategies and a safe design. This review examined research implementing best practice interventions and their impact on activities of daily living (ADL) and instrumental activities of daily living (IADL) for community-dwelling older adults. Of the 15 studies identified, all reported gains in at least 1 outcome, but few incorporated all features of best practice. Only 1 study evaluated ADL/IADL performance. More research implementing best practice physical activity guidelines and targeting ADL/IADL performance is indicated to understand the impact of such programs on everyday living.
    Topics in Geriatric Rehabilitation 01/2013; 29(1):67-76. DOI:10.1097/TGR.0b013e3182780813 · 0.14 Impact Factor