Fall outcomes did not differ by schedule in older adult fallers
Over six months, the two-week training group had 4 fall events versus 11 in the one-week group, a difference that was not statistically significant.
Our read
Interventions- Studied:
- Randomized trial in 30 community-dwelling older adults with recent falls, 6-month follow-up (Blinded, registered RBR-9dhx6kj)
- What changed:
- Falls did not differ by schedule: four events with distributed training versus 11 with massed training
- The catch:
- Only 30 participants contributed to the comparison of fall outcomes
- In the record:
- The 18th paper on perturbation-based balance training with results in people; 33 on record in all. Its result on falls agrees with all 3 other findings on record.
- Why it’s aging research:
- It measures an outcome that worsens with age.
Editor of record: Boris Djordjevic · AgingResearch.News
Thirty community-dwelling older adults who had fallen at least once in the previous six months took part in a randomized trial comparing two balance-training schedules. One group completed four sessions within one week; the other completed two sessions per week for two weeks. Training involved 96 disturbances to balance on a custom treadmill. Assessments took place before training, afterward and at six months.
Both groups had fewer falls after six months, with no difference between schedules. Scores on a test of dynamic balance improved, especially for responses to a loss of balance and balance while walking. Measures of walking patterns did not change.
Why it matters
The authors suggested that balance-training schedules for older adults with recent falls may be tailored to participants’ availability and clinical logistics.
Caveats
Both groups received training, so the trial could not isolate its effect on falls over time. The 30 participants all had recent falls; the findings do not cover older adults without that history.
Comments
Be the first to comment.