4.5 Article

Making Physical Activity Accessible to Older Adults With Memory Loss: A Feasibility Study

期刊

GERONTOLOGIST
卷 49, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS INC
DOI: 10.1093/geront/gnp082

关键词

Mild cognitive impairment; Physical exercise; Health promotion

资金

  1. NIA NIH HHS [R01 AG14777, R01 AG10845] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Purpose: For individuals with mild cognitive impairment (MCI), memory loss may prevent successful engagement in exercise, a key factor in preventing additional disability. The Resources and Activities for Life Long Independence (RALLI) program uses behavioral principles to make exercise more accessible for these individuals. Exercises are broken into small steps, sequenced, and linked with cues to help participants remember them. Memory aids, easy-to-follow instructions, and tracking forms to facilitate adherence and proper technique are provided to enhance exercise training and compensate for memory loss. Design and Methods: Thirty-seven individuals (M age = 81.9, SD = 5.8, range 70%-96; 78% women) participated in RALLI pilot groups held in retirement residences. Attendance was excellent, with participants attending 90% of classes. Results: At post-test (12 weeks), 84% of participants had exercised at least once during the prior week, compared with 62% who had exercised at least once during the week prior to baseline (p<.001), mean exercise time increased by 156 min per week (p<.0001), and SF-36 physical components scale significantly improved (p<.002). After 6 months, 76% of participants continued exercising (p<.003) and mean exercise time remained significantly improved (p<.0001). Implications: Persons with MCI can significantly benefit from an exercise program specifically designed to address their cognitive needs. Participants' ratings indicate improvement in perceived physical health and emotional well-being as a result of the intervention. Thus, RALLI is a promising intervention to promote exercise in individuals with MCI.

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

4.5
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