4.0 Article

Improving Physical Activity and Function in Overweight and Obese Older Adults with Osteoarthritis of the Knee: A Feasibility Study

期刊

REHABILITATION NURSING
卷 36, 期 1, 页码 32-42

出版社

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1002/j.2048-7940.2011.tb00063.x

关键词

aged; exercise; functional limitations; osteoarthritis

资金

  1. NIH, NINR [K01 NR08121, P30 NR03924]
  2. NIH, NCRR GCRC [M01 RR00056]
  3. University of Pittsburgh Medical Center Arthritis Network Disease Registry
  4. St. Margaret Memorial Hospital Foundation
  5. NATIONAL CENTER FOR ADVANCING TRANSLATIONAL SCIENCES [UL1TR000005] Funding Source: NIH RePORTER
  6. NATIONAL CENTER FOR RESEARCH RESOURCES [M01RR000056] Funding Source: NIH RePORTER
  7. NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF NURSING RESEARCH [K01NR008121, P30NR003924] Funding Source: NIH RePORTER
  8. NATIONAL INSTITUTE ON AGING [P30AG024827] Funding Source: NIH RePORTER

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Osteoarthritis of the knee, a prevalent condition in older adults, can impact physical function and ability to perform physical activity. This randomized controlled trial examined the effects of a 6-month self-efficacy-based, individually delivered, lower-extremity exercise and fitness walking intervention with 6-month follow-up on physical activity and function. The 26 subjects were mostly older (M = 63.2 years, SD = 9.8), White (83%), obese (BMI M = 33.3, SD = 6.0) women (96%). Physical activity was measured by diaries. Physical function was measured by the 6-minute walk, Short Physical Performance Battery (SPPB), and WOMAC Physical Function subscale. Exercise self-efficacy was assessed by a questionnaire. Results showed significant increases in self-reported performance of lower-extremity exercise and participation in fitness walking, distance in the 6-minute walk, and SPPB scores from baseline to 6-month follow-up with a trend for improvement in self-efficacy. Results suggest that the intervention was feasible, acceptable, and improved physical activity and function.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.0
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据