4.7 Article

The impact of a home-based walking programme on falls in older people: the Easy Steps randomised controlled trial

期刊

AGE AND AGEING
卷 44, 期 3, 页码 377-383

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/ageing/afu186

关键词

accidental falls; older people; physical activity; walking

资金

  1. NSW Ministry of Health though the NSW Health Promotion Demonstration Research Grant Scheme [HP08/08]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: walking is the most popular form of exercise in older people but the impact of walking on falls is unclear. This study investigated the impact of a 48-week walking programme on falls in older people. Methods: three hundred and eighty-six physically inactive people aged 65+ years living in the community were randomised into an intervention or control group. The intervention group received a self-paced, 48-week walking programme that involved three mailed printed manuals and telephone coaching. Coinciding with the walking programme manual control group participants received health information unrelated to falls. Monthly falls calendars were used to monitor falls (primary outcome) over 48 weeks. Secondary outcomes were self-reported quality of life, falls efficacy, exercise and walking levels. Mobility, leg strength and choice stepping reaction time were measured in a sub-sample (n = 178) of participants. Results: there was no difference in fall rates between the intervention and control groups in the follow-up period (IRR = 0.88, 95% CI: 0.60-1.29). By the end of the study, intervention group participants spent significantly more time exercising in general, and specifically walking for exercise (median 1.69 versus 0.75 h/week, P < 0.001). Conclusion: our finding that a walking programme is ineffective in preventing falls supports previous research and questions the suitability of recommending walking as a fall prevention strategy for older people. Walking, however, increases physical activity levels in previously inactive older people.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据