ArticleBMC geriatrics2023
Older adults, clinicians, and researchers' preferences for measuring adherence to resistance and balance exercises.
Article in BMC geriatrics, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundResistance and balance training are important exercise interventions for older populations living with chronic diseases. Accurately measuring if an individual is adhering to exercises as prescribed is important to determine if lack of improvement in health outcomes is because of issues with adherence. Measuring adherence to resistance and balance exercises is limited by current methods that depend heavily on self-report and are often better at and tailored towards capturing aerobic training parameters (e.g., step count, minutes of moderate to vigorous physical activity). Adherence measures must meet users' needs to be useful.
methodsUsing a Dillman tailored study design, we surveyed researchers who conduct exercise trials, clinicians who prescribe exercise for older adults, and older adults to determine: (1) how they are currently measuring adherence; (2) barriers and facilitators they have experienced to measurement; and (3) the information they would like collected about adherence (e.g., repetitions, sets, intensity, duration, frequency, quality). Surveys were disseminated internationally through professional networks, professional organizations, and social media. Participants completed an online survey between August 2021 and April 2022.
resultsEighty-eight older adults, 149 clinicians, and 41 researchers responded to the surveys. Most clinicians and researchers were between the ages of 30 and 39 years, and 70.0% were female. Most older adults were aged 70-79 years, and 46.6% were female. Diaries and calendars (either analog or digital) were the most common current methods of collecting adherence data. Users would like information about the intensity and quality of exercises completed that are presented in clear, easy to use formats that are meaningful for older adults where all data can be tracked in one place. Most older adults did not measure adherence because they did not want to, while clinicians most frequently reported not having measurement tools for adherence. Time, resources, motivation, and health were also identified as barriers to recording adherence.
conclusionsOur work provides information about current methods of measuring exercise adherence and suggestions to inform the design of future adherence measures. Future measures should comprehensively track adherence data in one place, including the intensity and quality of exercises.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.