4.5 Article

Six-month effects of the Groningen active living model (GALM) on physical activity, health and fitness outcomes in sedentary and underactive older adults aged 55-65

Journal

PATIENT EDUCATION AND COUNSELING
Volume 62, Issue 1, Pages 132-141

Publisher

ELSEVIER IRELAND LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.pec.2005.06.017

Keywords

physical activity; health; fitness; community-based strategy; sedentary older adults

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objective: To determine the effects on energy expenditure, health and fitness outcomes in sedentary older adults aged 55-65 after 6-month participation in the GALM program. Methods: In three Dutch communities, subjects from matched neighbourhoods were assigned to an intervention (n = 79) or a waiting-list control group (n = 102). The GALM program consisted of fifteen 60 min sessions once a week emphasising moderate-intensity recreational sports activities. Results: The intervention group showed significant increases in energy expenditure for recreational sports activities, other leisure-time physical activity, health indicators, and perceived and performance-based fitness. Contrary to our expectations, the same increases were found for the control group. Consequently, only significant between-group differences, favouring the intervention group, were obtained for sleep, diastolic blood pressure, perceived fitness score and grip strength. Conclusion: The increases in energy expenditure for physical activity from the GALM program, especially for the more intensive recreational sports activities, look promising and are in line with the expected amounts necessary to improve health. Further research is needed to evaluate long-term effects of participation in the GALM program. Practice implications: These results underline that GALM can be considered successful in stimulating leisure-time physical activity and improving health and fitness in older adults. (c) 2005 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available