ArthritisNCT04663685
MoveStrong at Home: A Feasibility Study of a Model for Remote Delivery of Functional Strength and Balance Training Combined With Nutrition Education for Older Pre-frail Adults.
A study testing Exercise program and Nutrition education in people with Arthritis and Cancer, run by University of Waterloo at 1 site in Canada.
Trial summary
Sufficient muscle strength helps to get out of a chair and can prevent falls. Up to 30% of older adults experience age-related loss of muscle strength, which can lead to frailty and health instability. Read more about this study
- Who is it for?
- Ages 60 years and older
- Conditions the study is for
- Arthritis, Cancer, Cardiovascular Diseases
- What is being tested?
- Exercise program and Nutrition education
- Could I receive a placebo?
- No, everyone receives an active treatment
- How many people
- 30 participants
- Where
- 1 siteCanada
- Study dates
- 5 Oct 2020to 12 Oct 2021
- Phase
- Interventional
- Are there results?
- Yes, posted in the registrySummary in the doctors' view
Key requirements
Who can take part, as listed by the sponsor. Only the study team can confirm whether you are eligible, so take this list to your doctor.
- Ages 60 years and older
- All sexes
- No healthy volunteers
- Adult, Older adult
Who may be able to join
- Has at least one of the following chronic conditions: arthritis, cancer (other than minor skin cancer), cardiovascular disease, chronic lung disease, congestive heart failure, diabetes, hypertension, kidney disease, obesity, osteoporosis, stroke
- Scored ≥ 1 point on the FRAIL Scale
- Able to give informed consent
Who cannot join
- Current or recent (within the past 6 months)participation in progressive resistance training program ≥ 2 times per week
- Receiving palliative care
- Unable to perform basic activities of daily living or follow 2-step commands (moderate-severe cognitive impairment)
- Upcoming travel plans (travelling> 1 week during the program)
- Absolute exercise contraindications (ACSM guidelines)
Trial locations and contacts
1 site in 1 country.
About this study
Sufficient muscle strength helps to get out of a chair and can prevent falls. Up to 30% of older adults experience age-related loss of muscle strength, which can lead to frailty and health instability. Exercise helps to build muscle, maintain bone density and prevent chronic disease, especially during the aging process. However, more than 75% of Canadian adults ≥18 years of age are not meeting physical activity guidelines. In addition, it is known that malnutrition, including low protein intake, may lead to poor physical function. While there are services to support exercise and nutrition, barriers to implementing them persist. The COVID-19 pandemic has exacerbated the potential for physical inactivity, malnutrition, and loneliness among older adults, especially those with pre-existing health or mobility impairments. Now and in future, alternate ways to promote exercise and proper nutrition to the most vulnerable are needed. The investigators propose to adapt MoveStrong, an 8-week education program combining functional and balance training with strategies to increase protein intake. The program was co-developed with patient advocates, Osteoporosis Canada, the YMCA, Community Support Connections and others. MoveStrong was delivered by telephone or web conference to older adults in their homes, using mailed program instructions, 1-on-1 training sessions through Physitrack®, as well as online nutrition Q\&A sessions and group discussion sessions over Microsoft® Teams. The primary aim of this study was to assess feasibility and acceptability of a remote model as determined by recruitment (≥ 25 people in 3 months), retention (≥80%), adherence of (70%) and participant experience.
Read the detailed description
MoveStrong at Home is an 8-week pilot study with a 4-week follow-up.
The primary research question pertains to the feasibility of implementation, defined by recruitment (number of participants recruited), retention (number retained at follow up), and adherence (percentage of exercise and nutrition sessions completed) and participant experience. The criteria for success included recruitment of 8 participants per month (up to a total of 25 participants in 3 months), retention of ≥80% at follow-up, and adherence of ≥70% across all exercise and nutrition sessions.
For secondary outcomes, the investigators assessed the effects of MoveStrong at Home on physical activity, fatigue, mental health and social isolation, quality of life, as well as protein/energy intake via telephone at baseline, post intervention and at follow-up. The following questionnaires were used: Physical Activity Scale for the Elderly; Centre for Epidemiologic Studies Depression Scale-fatigue questions; Warwick-Edinburgh Mental Well-being Scale; EQ5D5L20; and the Automated Self-Administered 24-Hour Dietary Assessment Tool (via interview). Physical function was assessed at baseline, post intervention and at follow-up using adapted and self-administered versions of the Short Performance Physical Battery balance test and the 30-second chair stand test. Qualitative exit and follow-up interviews were used to capture participant experience and identify barriers and facilitators to implementation and maintenance. The investigators monitored falls and adverse events throughout the study.
The investigators recruited participants in two phases. The investigators recruited 9 participants between October 5th and October 23rd, 2020 to begin the intervention together by November 2020. Participants recruited after that date participated in screening and assessments between November 2020 and January 2021, and began the intervention in January 2021. The investigators considered making modifications to the protocol to address any challenges that arose during delivery with the first phase of participants. Investigators over recruited by 5 participants to account for possible dropouts.
Each participant started the intervention with two 1-on-1 sessions on non-consecutive days (Monday to Friday) and completed the third session on their own. As progress is made, participants continued to receive a 1-on-1 session each week and completed two sessions independently. If a participant was unable to attend a 1-on-1 session due to a prior commitment, illness, or injury, a make-up session was scheduled for the same week or following week as necessary.
In addition, individuals participated in three dietitian-led virtual group Q\&A sessions to review content from the booklet and videos, as well as discuss more personalized strategies to increase protein intake. The dietitian considered the cost of preparing high-protein foods and the accessibility of these foods during a time of physical distancing. 60-minute small group seminars (5-10 participants) occurred on weeks 2, 4, and 6 (Wednesday).
An optional group discussion session that focused on behaviour change techniques took place on weeks 3, 5 \& 7 (Wednesday). The intention was to foster a sense of community and allow participants to share their experiences with one another. These sessions did not count toward adherence.
The goal of the investigators was not to test the efficacy of exercise, but to evaluate the implementation of a scalable and sustainable models to promote exercise at home or in the community.
- Conditions
- Arthritis, Cancer, Cardiovascular Diseases, Chronic Lung Disease, Congestive Heart Failure, Diabetes
- Being tested
- Exercise program, Nutrition education
- Keywords
- remote delivery, exercise, pre-frail, nutrition, pilot study
- Medical subject headings
- Arthritis, Neoplasms, Cardiovascular Diseases, Heart Failure, Diabetes Mellitus, Hypertension, Kidney Diseases, Obesity
What participants receive
What participants receive. In a randomised study each person is assigned to one group by chance.
Exercise programOther
Participants received two 1-on-1 exercise sessions per week to start. Each session lasted 30 minutes. As progress was made, participants were encouraged to exercise independently outside the structured sessions while continuing to receive a 1-on-1 session each week. The individualized exercises were aligned with functional movements to promote personal relevance: balance, pull, squat, push, hinge, lift \& carry and calf raise.
Nutrition educationOther
Participants received a nutrition education booklet and had access to five online videos that correspond to key topics in the booklet (reading nutrition labels, types of protein, foods containing protein, incorporating protein into meals, spreading protein in meals throughout the day). Participants attended three 60-minute nutrition Q\&A sessions led by a dietitian, where the group reviewed content from the booklet and videos, and discussed personalized strategies to increase protein intake.
| Study group | Role | What they receive |
|---|---|---|
| Single Arm | Experimental | This was the only arm in the study. All participants were allocated to this arm, where they received an 8-week remotely-delivered exercise and nutrition program. Receives: Other: Exercise program; Other: Nutrition education |
What is being measured
The primary outcome is the main question the study is designed to answer.
Recruitment
The number of participants recruited >25.
Measured: Through study completion, an average of 12 weeks
Retention
Feasibility threshold: The number of participants retained at follow-up >80%.
Measured: Through study completion, an average of 12 weeks
Average Adherence to Nutrition Sessions
Participants were encouraged to attend 3 nutrition sessions that took place on weeks 2, 4 and 6 of the intervention (12 weeks).
Feasibility threshold: "Attendance" or the average proportion of nutrition sessions >67% or >2/3 sessions.
Measured: Through study completion, an average of 12 weeks
Average Adherence to Exercise Sessions
Participants were encouraged to complete at least 3 exercise sessions per week (one supervised and two independent) for the duration of the intervention (12 weeks).
Feasibility threshold: "Attendance" or the average proportion of exercise sessions completed >70% or 25.3/36 sessions.
Measured: Through study completion, an average of 12 weeks
Secondary outcomes (9)
Physical Activity
A Physical Activity Screen (PAS) was used to capture average minutes of moderate-to-vigorous physical activity each week (Clark et al., 2020). This tool was created based on questions used by Exercise is Medicine in the Physical Activity Vital Sign questionnaire (Greenwood et al., 2010). The results were compared to national exercise guidelines for older adults that promote ≥150 minutes and ≥2 session of muscle strengthening per week. A higher score indicated a better outcome.
Measured: Baseline, week 9, week 12
Exercise Self-efficacy Scale
A modified version of the Exercise Self-Efficacy Scale (ESES) was used to assess levels of planning and execution of exercise related activities (Resnick \& Jenkins, 2000). There were a total of 11 questions. The lowest response option to each question was "Not true at all = 1", while the highest was "Exactly true = 5". Responses closer to the highest response option indicate a better outcome. Overall instrument score ranged from 11-55 points.
Measured: Baseline, week 9, week 12
30-second Chair Stand
The 30-second Chair Stand was used to access lower extremity muscle function (Bohannon, 1995; Jones et al., 1999). The instructions for this test were adapted for self-administration under the remote supervisor supervision of the exercise physiologist. A higher score on the test indicated a better outcome.
Measured: Baseline, week 9, week 12
Static Balance
Static balance was measured using Short Performance Physical Battery (SPPB) (J. M. Guralnik et al., 1994) balance subscale. The subscale scores ranged from 0-4, with a higher score indicating greater balance. The instructions for this test were adapted for self-administration under the remote supervisor supervision of the exercise physiologist.
Please note that the SPPB gait speed and chair stand subscales were not included as a part of the assessment. Therefore the total score for the SPPB (0-12) was not summed.
Measured: Baseline, week 9, week 12
Fatigue
Fatigue was assessed using the Center for Epidemiologic Studies Depression Scale-fatigue questions (CES-D) (Radloff, 1977). Only two questions on the CES-D were used: "I felt that everything I did was an effort" and "I could not get going". Scores ranged from of 0-6 and were summed from the two selected questions (lowest response option was "Rarely (<1 day) = 0", highest response option was "Nearly every day = 3"). Responses closer to the lowest response option indicated a better outcome.
Measured: Baseline, week 9, week 12
Mental Health and Social Isolation
The Warwick-Edinburgh Mental Well-being Scale (WEMWBS) was used to assess positive aspects of mental health. Score ranges from 14-70 and were summed from 14 questions (lowest response option was "None of the time =1", highest response option was "All of the time = 5"). Responses closer to the highest response option indicated a better outcome.
Measured: Baseline, week 9, week 12
Quality of Life Score
The EuroQol Group 5 Dimension 5 Level (EQ5D5L) questionnaire was used to evaluate health-related quality of life (Herdman et al., 2011). The system comprised five dimensions: mobility, self-care, usual activities, pain/discomfort, and anxiety/depression. Each dimension had five levels: "no problems = 1" to "extreme problems = 5". Responses with lower scores indicated a better outcome. An index value ranging from 0-1 is then generated from the equation by from the scores of the five domains (Xie et al. 2016)
Measured: Baseline, week 9, week 12
Nutritional Risk
The SCREEN tool is a valid and reliable nutrition questionnaire designed specifically for older adults (Keller et al., 2005). This tool was used to assess appetite, understand eating habits, and record recent changes in weight. Scores ranged from of 0-64 and were summed from 14 questions (lowest response option was "0", highest response option was "4"). Responses closer to the highest response option indicated a better outcome.
Measured: Baseline, week 9, week 12
Dietary Protein Intake
ASA24®-Canada was a guided web-based tool used to record a three 24-hour diet recalls. All food and drinks consumed by the participant on two weekdays and one weekend day (3 days in total) were reported to track protein intake (Subar et al., 2012). An average of the three days was then calculated.
Measured: Baseline, week 9, week 12
Timeline
From the start of the study to its completion; the mark is today. Estimated dates are the sponsor’s plan.
- First posted11 Dec 2020
- Study start5 Oct 2020
- Primary completion9 Apr 2021
- Study completion12 Oct 2021
Resources
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govThe registry entry this page is built from, with its full change history.
- Posted resultsParticipant flow, outcome measures and adverse events reported by the sponsor.
- Publications (14)Papers the sponsor has linked to this study.
- Other trials for ArthritisStudies of the same condition, open and under way.
- What the trial phases meanHow a treatment moves from first tests in people to approval.
More details
For doctors and researchers: how the study is designed, who runs it, and its registry IDs.
Study design
- Study type
- Interventional
- Phase
- Phase N/A
- Primary purpose
- Health services research
- Allocation
- Not applicable
- Intervention model
- Single group
- Model description
- This is an 8-week feasibility study with a 4-week follow-up. Time series design. Note: 6-month follow-up was optional and exploratory in nature.
- Masking
- None (open label)
- Enrolment
- 30 participants (actual)
Sponsor and investigators
- Lead sponsor
- University of Waterloo
- Sponsor type
- University, hospital or other
- Responsible party
- Sponsor
- Investigators
- Lora Giangregorio, PhD, Principal investigator, University of Waterloo
IDs, dates and publications
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT04663685
- Sponsor's protocol ID
- 42206
- Status last verified
- Nov 2023
- First submitted
- 8 Oct 2020
- Last updated
- 13 May 2024
- Results posted
- Yes, on ClinicalTrials.gov
- Data monitoring committee
- No
- FDA-regulated drug
- No
- FDA-regulated device
- No
- Individual data sharing
- No
Publications
Greenwood JL, Joy EA, Stanford JB. The Physical Activity Vital Sign: a primary care tool to guide counseling for obesity. J Phys Act Health. 2010 Sep;7(5):571-6. doi: 10.1123/jpah.7.5.571.
PubMed 20864751Resnick B, Jenkins LS. Testing the reliability and validity of the Self-Efficacy for Exercise scale. Nurs Res. 2000 May-Jun;49(3):154-9. doi: 10.1097/00006199-200005000-00007.
PubMed 10882320McAuley E, Mailey EL, Mullen SP, Szabo AN, Wojcicki TR, White SM, Gothe N, Olson EA, Kramer AF. Growth trajectories of exercise self-efficacy in older adults: influence of measures and initial status. Health Psychol. 2011 Jan;30(1):75-83. doi: 10.1037/a0021567.
PubMed 21038962Bohannon RW. Sit-to-stand test for measuring performance of lower extremity muscles. Percept Mot Skills. 1995 Feb;80(1):163-6. doi: 10.2466/pms.1995.80.1.163.
PubMed 7624188Jones CJ, Rikli RE, Beam WC. A 30-s chair-stand test as a measure of lower body strength in community-residing older adults. Res Q Exerc Sport. 1999 Jun;70(2):113-9. doi: 10.1080/02701367.1999.10608028.
PubMed 10380242Guralnik JM, Simonsick EM, Ferrucci L, Glynn RJ, Berkman LF, Blazer DG, Scherr PA, Wallace RB. A short physical performance battery assessing lower extremity function: association with self-reported disability and prediction of mortality and nursing home admission. J Gerontol. 1994 Mar;49(2):M85-94. doi: 10.1093/geronj/49.2.m85.
PubMed 8126356Tennant R, Hiller L, Fishwick R, Platt S, Joseph S, Weich S, Parkinson J, Secker J, Stewart-Brown S. The Warwick-Edinburgh Mental Well-being Scale (WEMWBS): development and UK validation. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2007 Nov 27;5:63. doi: 10.1186/1477-7525-5-63.
PubMed 18042300Herdman M, Gudex C, Lloyd A, Janssen M, Kind P, Parkin D, Bonsel G, Badia X. Development and preliminary testing of the new five-level version of EQ-5D (EQ-5D-5L). Qual Life Res. 2011 Dec;20(10):1727-36. doi: 10.1007/s11136-011-9903-x. Epub 2011 Apr 9.
PubMed 21479777Keller HH, Goy R, Kane SL. Validity and reliability of SCREEN II (Seniors in the community: risk evaluation for eating and nutrition, Version II). Eur J Clin Nutr. 2005 Oct;59(10):1149-57. doi: 10.1038/sj.ejcn.1602225.
PubMed 16015256Subar AF, Kirkpatrick SI, Mittl B, Zimmerman TP, Thompson FE, Bingley C, Willis G, Islam NG, Baranowski T, McNutt S, Potischman N. The Automated Self-Administered 24-hour dietary recall (ASA24): a resource for researchers, clinicians, and educators from the National Cancer Institute. J Acad Nutr Diet. 2012 Aug;112(8):1134-7. doi: 10.1016/j.jand.2012.04.016. Epub 2012 Jun 15. No abstract available.
PubMed 22704899Clark RE, Milligan J, Ashe MC, Faulkner G, Canfield C, Funnell L, Brien S, Butt DA, Mehan U, Samson K, Papaioannou A, Giangregorio L. A patient-oriented approach to the development of a primary care physical activity screen for embedding into electronic medical records. Appl Physiol Nutr Metab. 2021 Jun;46(6):589-596. doi: 10.1139/apnm-2020-0356. Epub 2020 Nov 23.
PubMed 33226847Radloff, LS. The CES-D scale: A self-report depression scale for research in the general population. Applied psychological measurement,1977; 1(3), 385-401.
Xie F, Pullenayegum E, Gaebel K, Bansback N, Bryan S, Ohinmaa A, Poissant L, Johnson JA; Canadian EQ-5D-5L Valuation Study Group. A Time Trade-off-derived Value Set of the EQ-5D-5L for Canada. Med Care. 2016 Jan;54(1):98-105. doi: 10.1097/MLR.0000000000000447.
PubMed 26492214Wang E, Keller H, Mourtzakis M, Rodrigues IB, Steinke A, Ashe MC, Thabane L, Brien S, Funnell L, Cheung AM, Milligan J, Papaioannou A, Weston ZJ, Straus S, Giangregorio L. MoveStrong at home: a feasibility study of a model for remote delivery of functional strength and balance training combined with nutrition education for older pre-frail and frail adults. Appl Physiol Nutr Metab. 2022 Dec 1;47(12):1172-1186. doi: 10.1139/apnm-2022-0195. Epub 2022 Sep 15.
PubMed 36108334
Study at a glance
From the registry record, last updated by the sponsor on 13 May 2024. Recruitment status is as the sponsor reported it: confirm with the study team.
- Official title
- MoveStrong at Home: A Feasibility Study of a Model for Remote Delivery of Functional Strength and Balance Training Combined With Nutrition Education for Older Pre-frail Adults.
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT04663685
- Acronym / sponsor ID
- 42206
- Conditions
- Arthritis, Cancer, Cardiovascular Diseases, Chronic Lung Disease, Congestive Heart Failure, Diabetes
- Keywords
- remote delivery, exercise, pre-frail, nutrition, pilot study
- Study type
- Interventional
- Recruitment status
- Completed
- Enrolment
- 30 participants (actual)
- Lead sponsor
- University of WaterlooUniversity, hospital or other
- Study start
- 5 Oct 2020 (actual)
- Primary completion
- 9 Apr 2021 (actual)
- Study completion
- 12 Oct 2021 (actual)
- First posted
- 11 Dec 2020 (actual)
- Results
- Posted 13 May 2024
Clinical summary
The research question as the sponsor registered it. This describes what the study plans to test, not what it found.
Sufficient muscle strength helps to get out of a chair and can prevent falls. Up to 30% of older adults experience age-related loss of muscle strength, which can lead to frailty and health instability. Exercise helps to build muscle, maintain bone density and prevent chronic disease, especially during the aging process. However, more than 75% of Canadian adults ≥18 years of age are not meeting physical activity guidelines. In addition, it is known that malnutrition, including low protein intake, may lead to poor physical function. While there are services to support exercise and nutrition, barriers to implementing them persist. The COVID-19 pandemic has exacerbated the potential for physical inactivity, malnutrition, and loneliness among older adults, especially those with pre-existing health or mobility impairments. Now and in future, alternate ways to promote exercise and proper nutrition to the most vulnerable are needed. The investigators propose to adapt MoveStrong, an 8-week education program combining functional and balance training with strategies to increase protein intake. The program was co-developed with patient advocates, Osteoporosis Canada, the YMCA, Community Support Connections and others. MoveStrong was delivered by telephone or web conference to older adults in their homes, using mailed program instructions, 1-on-1 training sessions through Physitrack®, as well as online nutrition Q\&A sessions and group discussion sessions over Microsoft® Teams. The primary aim of this study was to assess feasibility and acceptability of a remote model as determined by recruitment (≥ 25 people in 3 months), retention (≥80%), adherence of (70%) and participant experience.
Detailed description
MoveStrong at Home is an 8-week pilot study with a 4-week follow-up.
The primary research question pertains to the feasibility of implementation, defined by recruitment (number of participants recruited), retention (number retained at follow up), and adherence (percentage of exercise and nutrition sessions completed) and participant experience. The criteria for success included recruitment of 8 participants per month (up to a total of 25 participants in 3 months), retention of ≥80% at follow-up, and adherence of ≥70% across all exercise and nutrition sessions.
For secondary outcomes, the investigators assessed the effects of MoveStrong at Home on physical activity, fatigue, mental health and social isolation, quality of life, as well as protein/energy intake via telephone at baseline, post intervention and at follow-up. The following questionnaires were used: Physical Activity Scale for the Elderly; Centre for Epidemiologic Studies Depression Scale-fatigue questions; Warwick-Edinburgh Mental Well-being Scale; EQ5D5L20; and the Automated Self-Administered 24-Hour Dietary Assessment Tool (via interview). Physical function was assessed at baseline, post intervention and at follow-up using adapted and self-administered versions of the Short Performance Physical Battery balance test and the 30-second chair stand test. Qualitative exit and follow-up interviews were used to capture participant experience and identify barriers and facilitators to implementation and maintenance. The investigators monitored falls and adverse events throughout the study.
The investigators recruited participants in two phases. The investigators recruited 9 participants between October 5th and October 23rd, 2020 to begin the intervention together by November 2020. Participants recruited after that date participated in screening and assessments between November 2020 and January 2021, and began the intervention in January 2021. The investigators considered making modifications to the protocol to address any challenges that arose during delivery with the first phase of participants. Investigators over recruited by 5 participants to account for possible dropouts.
Each participant started the intervention with two 1-on-1 sessions on non-consecutive days (Monday to Friday) and completed the third session on their own. As progress is made, participants continued to receive a 1-on-1 session each week and completed two sessions independently. If a participant was unable to attend a 1-on-1 session due to a prior commitment, illness, or injury, a make-up session was scheduled for the same week or following week as necessary.
In addition, individuals participated in three dietitian-led virtual group Q\&A sessions to review content from the booklet and videos, as well as discuss more personalized strategies to increase protein intake. The dietitian considered the cost of preparing high-protein foods and the accessibility of these foods during a time of physical distancing. 60-minute small group seminars (5-10 participants) occurred on weeks 2, 4, and 6 (Wednesday).
An optional group discussion session that focused on behaviour change techniques took place on weeks 3, 5 \& 7 (Wednesday). The intention was to foster a sense of community and allow participants to share their experiences with one another. These sessions did not count toward adherence.
The goal of the investigators was not to test the efficacy of exercise, but to evaluate the implementation of a scalable and sustainable models to promote exercise at home or in the community.
Study design
- Primary purpose
- Health services research
- Allocation
- Not applicable
- Intervention model
- Single group
- Masking
- None (open label)
- Number of arms
- 1
- Model description
- This is an 8-week feasibility study with a 4-week follow-up. Time series design. Note: 6-month follow-up was optional and exploratory in nature.
| Arm | Type | Receives |
|---|---|---|
| Single Arm | Experimental | Other: Exercise program, Other: Nutrition educationThis was the only arm in the study. All participants were allocated to this arm, where they received an 8-week remotely-delivered exercise and nutrition program. |
Who may qualify
- Ages
- 60 years and older
- Sex
- All
- Healthy volunteers
- Not accepted
- Age groups
- Adult, Older adult
Key inclusion criteria (3 listed)
- Has at least one of the following chronic conditions: arthritis, cancer (other than minor skin cancer), cardiovascular disease, chronic lung disease, congestive heart failure, diabetes, hypertension, kidney disease, obesity, osteoporosis, stroke
- Scored ≥ 1 point on the FRAIL Scale
- Able to give informed consent
Key exclusion criteria (5 listed)
- Current or recent (within the past 6 months)participation in progressive resistance training program ≥ 2 times per week
- Receiving palliative care
- Unable to perform basic activities of daily living or follow 2-step commands (moderate-severe cognitive impairment)
- Upcoming travel plans (travelling> 1 week during the program)
- Absolute exercise contraindications (ACSM guidelines)
Eligibility is decided by the study team after screening; this overview does not establish that a patient qualifies. Full inclusion and exclusion criteria.
Interventions
| Intervention | Type | Arms |
|---|---|---|
| Exercise programParticipants received two 1-on-1 exercise sessions per week to start. Each session lasted 30 minutes. As progress was made, participants were encouraged to exercise independently outside the structured sessions while continuing to receive a 1-on-1 session each week. The individualized exercises were aligned with functional movements to promote personal relevance: balance, pull, squat, push, hinge, lift \& carry and calf raise. | Other | Single Arm |
| Nutrition educationParticipants received a nutrition education booklet and had access to five online videos that correspond to key topics in the booklet (reading nutrition labels, types of protein, foods containing protein, incorporating protein into meals, spreading protein in meals throughout the day). Participants attended three 60-minute nutrition Q\&A sessions led by a dietitian, where the group reviewed content from the booklet and videos, and discussed personalized strategies to increase protein intake. | Other | Single Arm |
Primary outcome
Recruitment
Time frame: Through study completion, an average of 12 weeks
The number of participants recruited >25.
Retention
Time frame: Through study completion, an average of 12 weeks
Feasibility threshold: The number of participants retained at follow-up >80%.
Average Adherence to Nutrition Sessions
Time frame: Through study completion, an average of 12 weeks
Participants were encouraged to attend 3 nutrition sessions that took place on weeks 2, 4 and 6 of the intervention (12 weeks). Feasibility threshold: "Attendance" or the average proportion of nutrition sessions >67% or >2/3 sessions.
Average Adherence to Exercise Sessions
Time frame: Through study completion, an average of 12 weeks
Participants were encouraged to complete at least 3 exercise sessions per week (one supervised and two independent) for the duration of the intervention (12 weeks). Feasibility threshold: "Attendance" or the average proportion of exercise sessions completed >70% or 25.3/36 sessions.
9 secondary outcomes
Physical Activity
Time frame: Baseline, week 9, week 12
Exercise Self-efficacy Scale
Time frame: Baseline, week 9, week 12
30-second Chair Stand
Time frame: Baseline, week 9, week 12
Static Balance
Time frame: Baseline, week 9, week 12
Fatigue
Time frame: Baseline, week 9, week 12
Mental Health and Social Isolation
Time frame: Baseline, week 9, week 12
Quality of Life Score
Time frame: Baseline, week 9, week 12
Nutritional Risk
Time frame: Baseline, week 9, week 12
Dietary Protein Intake
Time frame: Baseline, week 9, week 12
Results and safety
Loading the posted results from ClinicalTrials.gov…
Research links
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govLast updated by the sponsor 13 May 2024.
- Posted resultsParticipant flow, baseline, all outcome measures and adverse events.
- Background: PubMed 20864751Greenwood JL, Joy EA, Stanford JB. The Physical Activity Vital Sign: a primary care tool to guide counseling for obesity. J Phys Act Health. 2010 Sep;7(5):571-6. doi: 10.1123/jpah.7.5.571.
- Background: PubMed 10882320Resnick B, Jenkins LS. Testing the reliability and validity of the Self-Efficacy for Exercise scale. Nurs Res. 2000 May-Jun;49(3):154-9. doi: 10.1097/00006199-200005000-00007.
- Background: PubMed 21038962McAuley E, Mailey EL, Mullen SP, Szabo AN, Wojcicki TR, White SM, Gothe N, Olson EA, Kramer AF. Growth trajectories of exercise self-efficacy in older adults: influence of measures and initial status. Health Psychol. 2011 Jan;30(1):75-83. doi: 10.1037/a0021567.
- Background: PubMed 7624188Bohannon RW. Sit-to-stand test for measuring performance of lower extremity muscles. Percept Mot Skills. 1995 Feb;80(1):163-6. doi: 10.2466/pms.1995.80.1.163.
- Background: PubMed 10380242Jones CJ, Rikli RE, Beam WC. A 30-s chair-stand test as a measure of lower body strength in community-residing older adults. Res Q Exerc Sport. 1999 Jun;70(2):113-9. doi: 10.1080/02701367.1999.10608028.
- Background: PubMed 8126356Guralnik JM, Simonsick EM, Ferrucci L, Glynn RJ, Berkman LF, Blazer DG, Scherr PA, Wallace RB. A short physical performance battery assessing lower extremity function: association with self-reported disability and prediction of mortality and nursing home admission. J Gerontol. 1994 Mar;49(2):M85-94. doi: 10.1093/geronj/49.2.m85.
- Background: PubMed 18042300Tennant R, Hiller L, Fishwick R, Platt S, Joseph S, Weich S, Parkinson J, Secker J, Stewart-Brown S. The Warwick-Edinburgh Mental Well-being Scale (WEMWBS): development and UK validation. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2007 Nov 27;5:63. doi: 10.1186/1477-7525-5-63.
- Background: PubMed 21479777Herdman M, Gudex C, Lloyd A, Janssen M, Kind P, Parkin D, Bonsel G, Badia X. Development and preliminary testing of the new five-level version of EQ-5D (EQ-5D-5L). Qual Life Res. 2011 Dec;20(10):1727-36. doi: 10.1007/s11136-011-9903-x. Epub 2011 Apr 9.
- Background: PubMed 16015256Keller HH, Goy R, Kane SL. Validity and reliability of SCREEN II (Seniors in the community: risk evaluation for eating and nutrition, Version II). Eur J Clin Nutr. 2005 Oct;59(10):1149-57. doi: 10.1038/sj.ejcn.1602225.
- Background: PubMed 22704899Subar AF, Kirkpatrick SI, Mittl B, Zimmerman TP, Thompson FE, Bingley C, Willis G, Islam NG, Baranowski T, McNutt S, Potischman N. The Automated Self-Administered 24-hour dietary recall (ASA24): a resource for researchers, clinicians, and educators from the National Cancer Institute. J Acad Nutr Diet. 2012 Aug;112(8):1134-7. doi: 10.1016/j.jand.2012.04.016. Epub 2012 Jun 15. No abstract available.
- Background: PubMed 33226847Clark RE, Milligan J, Ashe MC, Faulkner G, Canfield C, Funnell L, Brien S, Butt DA, Mehan U, Samson K, Papaioannou A, Giangregorio L. A patient-oriented approach to the development of a primary care physical activity screen for embedding into electronic medical records. Appl Physiol Nutr Metab. 2021 Jun;46(6):589-596. doi: 10.1139/apnm-2020-0356. Epub 2020 Nov 23.
- BackgroundRadloff, LS. The CES-D scale: A self-report depression scale for research in the general population. Applied psychological measurement,1977; 1(3), 385-401.
- Individual participant dataSharing planned: No
Related trials for Arthritis
Not yet recruitingPhase 2
Extension Study of Safety and Tolerability of DDY391 in Participants With Moderate to Severe Psoriatic Arthritis (CDDY391A12201-extension)
Moderate to Severe Psoriatic Arthritis
RecruitingPhase 2
Study of PTC844 in Participants With Active Rheumatoid Arthritis
Rheumatoid Arthritis
Not yet recruitingPhase 1
An Ascending Dose Study of DKB903 in Participants With Rheumatoid Arthritis (RA) and Participants With Systemic Lupus Erythematosus (SLE)
Rheumatoid Arthritis and Systemic Lupus Erythematosus
Not yet recruiting
Holistic Healing for Knee Osteoarthritis
Knee Osteoarthritis (Knee OA)
Active, not recruiting
Effects of Resistance Exercise on Enthesitis in Patients With Spondyloarthritis
Spondyloarthritis (SpA), Axial Spondylarthritis (axSpA)
Referral and contact
AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals. Contact the study team or a site listed below; they decide who can take part. This study is not recruiting at the moment.
Lora Giangregorio, PhD principal investigator
University of Waterloo
1 site in 1 country: see every site and its status.
Questions about this trial
What is this clinical trial studying?
A study testing Exercise program and Nutrition education in people with Arthritis and Cancer, run by University of Waterloo at 1 site in Canada.
The full registered description is in the About this study section and the official record.
Who may be eligible to take part?
The sponsor lists 3 inclusion and 5 exclusion criteria. Eligibility is decided by the study team after screening, so read the full criteria and contact a listed site.
Is this clinical trial currently recruiting?
The record says: finished, as of the sponsor's last update on 13 May 2024. Status can change between updates, so confirm with the study contact before making plans.
Where is the study taking place?
The record lists 1 site in Canada. Whether a site is taking part right now should be confirmed with that site. See every site.
What are the possible benefits and risks?
They depend on the study and the treatment, and no study can promise a benefit. The study team explains the known risks during informed consent, before anyone joins; the record itself does not list them.
Are results available for this study?
Yes. Results are posted in the registry (first posted 13 May 2024). A summary is in the For doctors view, and the full results are on ClinicalTrials.gov.
How can a doctor refer a patient or contact the research team?
The record lists no contact. The official record names the sponsor, who can be asked directly. AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals.
What does the primary outcome measure?
Recruitment (time frame: Through study completion, an average of 12 weeks). The study lists 4 primary outcomes in all. It is what the study was designed to measure, not a finding.
Where can I read the original study information?
On the ClinicalTrials.gov record for NCT04663685, which also lists 14 linked publications.
Does a listing mean the treatment is approved or proven to work?
No. A listing means the study is registered. It does not show that the treatment is safe, works, or is approved by a regulator.
How often is this information updated?
AzTrials copies changed records from ClinicalTrials.gov every night and reloads the whole registry every week. The sponsor last updated this record on 13 May 2024.