Carolyn Belcher

Multicentre cluster randomised trial comparing a community group exercise programme and home-based exercise with usual care for people aged 65 years and over in primary care

BACKGROUND Regular physical activity (PA) reduces the risk of falls and hip fractures, and mortality from all causes. However, PA levels are low in the older population and previous intervention studies have demonstrated only modest, short-term improvements. OBJECTIVE To evaluate the impact of two exercise promotion programmes on PA in people aged ≥ 65 years. DESIGN The ProAct65+ study was a pragmatic, three-arm parallel design, cluster randomised controlled trial of class-based exercise [Falls Management Exercise (FaME) programme], home-based exercise [Otago Exercise Programme (OEP)] and usual care among older people (aged ≥ 65 years) in primary care. SETTING Forty-three UK-based general practices in London and Nottingham/Derby. PARTICIPANTS A total of 1256 people ≥ 65 years were recruited through their general practices to take part in the trial. INTERVENTIONS The FaME programme and OEP. FaME included weekly classes plus home exercises for 24 weeks and encouraged walking. OEP included home exercises supported by peer mentors (PMs) for 24 weeks, and encouraged walking. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES The primary outcome was the proportion that reported reaching the recommended PA target of 150 minutes of moderate to vigorous physical activity (MVPA) per week, 12 months after cessation of the intervention. Secondary outcomes included functional assessments of balance and falls risk, the incidence of falls, fear of falling, quality of life, social networks and self-efficacy. An economic evaluation including participant and NHS costs was embedded in the clinical trial. RESULTS In total, 20,507 patients from 43 general practices were invited to participate. Expressions of interest were received from 2752 (13%) and 1256 (6%) consented to join the trial; 387 were allocated to the FaME arm, 411 to the OEP arm and 458 to usual care. Primary outcome data were available at 12 months after the end of the intervention period for 830 (66%) of the study participants. The proportions reporting at least 150 minutes of MVPA per week rose between baseline and 12 months after the intervention from 40% to 49% in the FaME arm, from 41% to 43% in the OEP arm and from 37.5% to 38.0% in the usual-care arm. A significantly higher proportion in the FaME arm than in the usual-care arm reported at least 150 minutes of MVPA per week at 12 months after the intervention [adjusted odds ratio (AOR) 1.78, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.11 to 2.87; p = 0.02]. There was no significant difference in MVPA between OEP and usual care (AOR 1.17, 95% CI 0.72 to 1.92; p = 0.52). Participants in the FaME arm added around 15 minutes of MVPA per day to their baseline physical activity level. In the 12 months after the close of the intervention phase, there was a statistically significant reduction in falls rate in the FaME arm compared with the usual-care arm (incidence rate ratio 0.74, 95% CI 0.55 to 0.99; p = 0.042). Scores on the Physical Activity Scale for the Elderly showed a small but statistically significant benefit for FaME compared with usual care, as did perceptions of benefits from exercise. Balance confidence was significantly improved at 12 months post intervention in both arms compared with the usual-care arm. There were no statistically significant differences between intervention arms and the usual-care arm in other secondary outcomes, including quality-adjusted life-years. FaME is more expensive than OEP delivered with PMs (£269 vs. £88 per participant in London; £218 vs. £117 in Nottingham). The cost per extra person exercising at, or above, target was £1919.64 in London and £1560.21 in Nottingham (mean £1739.93). CONCLUSION The FaME intervention increased self-reported PA levels among community-dwelling older adults 12 months after the intervention, and significantly reduced falls. Both the FaME and OEP interventions appeared to be safe, with no significant differences in adverse reactions between study arms. TRIAL REGISTRATION This trial is registered as ISRCTN43453770. FUNDING This project was funded by the NIHR Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 18, No. 49. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Lessons learnt during a complex, multicentre cluster randomised controlled trial: the ProAct65+ trial

BackgroundFailure to recruit to target or schedule is common in randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Innovative interventions are not always fully developed before being tested, and maintenance of fidelity to the intervention during trials can be problematic. Missing data can compromise analyses, and inaccurate capture of risks to participants can influence reporting of intervention harms and benefits.In this paper we describe how challenges of recruitment and retention of participants, standardisation and quality control of interventions and capture of adverse events were overcome in the ProAct65+ cluster RCT. This trial compared class-based and home-based exercise with usual care in people aged 65 years and over, recruited through general practice. The home-based exercise participants were supported by Peer Mentors.Results(1) Organisational factors, including room availability in general practices, slowed participant recruitment so the recruitment period was extended and the number invited to participate increased. (2) Telephone pre-screening was introduced to exclude potential participants who were already very active and those who were frequent fallers. (3) Recruitment of volunteer peer mentors was difficult and time consuming and their acceptable case load less than expected. Lowering the age limit for peer mentors and reducing their contact schedule with participants did not improve recruitment. (4) Fidelity to the group intervention was optimised by introducing quality assurance observation of classes by experienced exercise instructors. (5) Diaries were used to capture data on falls, service use and other exercise-related costs, but completion was variable so their frequency was reduced. (6) Classification of adverse events differed between research sites so all events were assessed by both sites and discrepancies discussed.ConclusionsRecruitment rates for trials in general practice may be limited by organisational factors and longer recruitment periods should be allowed for. Exercise studies may be attractive to those who least need them; additional screening measures can be employed to avoid assessment of ineligible participants. Enrolment of peer mentors for intervention support is challenging and needs to be separately tested for feasibility. Standardisation of exercise interventions is problematic when exercise programmes are tailored to participants’ capabilities; quality assurance observations may assure fidelity of the intervention. Data collection by diaries can be burdensome to participants, resulting in variable and incomplete data capture; compromises in completion frequency may reduce missing data. Risk assessments are essential in exercise promotion studies, but categorisation of risks can vary between assessors; methods for their standardisation can be developed.Trial registrationISRCTN43453770