Publikation: Group or individual lifestyle-integrated functional exercise (LiFE)? : A qualitative analysis of acceptability
Dateien
Datum
Autor:innen
Herausgeber:innen
ISSN der Zeitschrift
Electronic ISSN
ISBN
Bibliografische Daten
Verlag
Schriftenreihe
Auflagebezeichnung
URI (zitierfähiger Link)
DOI (zitierfähiger Link)
Internationale Patentnummer
Link zur Lizenz
Angaben zur Forschungsförderung
Projekt
Open Access-Veröffentlichung
Sammlungen
Core Facility der Universität Konstanz
Titel in einer weiteren Sprache
Publikationstyp
Publikationsstatus
Erschienen in
Zusammenfassung
Background:
The Lifestyle-integrated Functional Exercise (LiFE) program is an effective but resource-intensive fall prevention program delivered one-to-one in participants’ homes. A recently developed group-based LiFE (gLiFE) could enhance large-scale implementability and decrease resource intensity. The aim of this qualitative focus group study is to compare participants’ experiences regarding acceptability of gLiFE vs LiFE.
Methods:
Programs were delivered in seven group sessions (gLiFE) or seven individual home visits (LiFE) within a multi-center, randomized non-inferiority trial. Four structured focus group discussions (90–100 min duration; one per format and study site) on content, structure, and subjective effects of gLiFE and LiFE were conducted. Qualitative content analysis using the method of inductive category formation by Mayring was applied for data analysis. Coding was managed using NVivo.
Results:
In both formats, participants (N = 30, 22 women, ngLiFE = 15, nLiFE = 15, mean age 78.8 ± 6.6 years) were positive about content, structure, and support received by trainers. Participants reflected on advantages of both formats: the social aspects of learning the program in a peer group (gLiFE), and benefits of learning the program at home (LiFE). In gLiFE, some difficulties with the implementation of activities were reported. In both formats, the majority of participants reported positive outcomes and successful implementation of new movement habits.
Conclusion:
This is the first study to examine participants’ views on and experiences with gLiFE and LiFE, revealing strengths and limitations of both formats that can be used for program refinement. Both formats were highly acceptable to participants, suggesting that gLiFE may have similar potential to be adopted by adults aged 70 years and older compared to LiFE.
Zusammenfassung in einer weiteren Sprache
Fachgebiet (DDC)
Schlagwörter
Konferenz
Rezension
Zitieren
ISO 690
REICHERZER, Leah, Franziska KRAMER-GMEINER, Sarah LABUDEK, Carl-Philipp JANSEN, Corinna NERZ, Malin J. NYSTRAND, Clemens BECKER, Lindy CLEMSON, Michael SCHWENK, 2021. Group or individual lifestyle-integrated functional exercise (LiFE)? : A qualitative analysis of acceptability. In: BMC geriatrics. BioMed Central. 2021, 21, 93. eISSN 1471-2318. Available under: doi: 10.1186/s12877-020-01991-0BibTex
@article{Reicherzer2021Group-54632, year={2021}, doi={10.1186/s12877-020-01991-0}, title={Group or individual lifestyle-integrated functional exercise (LiFE)? : A qualitative analysis of acceptability}, volume={21}, journal={BMC geriatrics}, author={Reicherzer, Leah and Kramer-Gmeiner, Franziska and Labudek, Sarah and Jansen, Carl-Philipp and Nerz, Corinna and Nystrand, Malin J. and Becker, Clemens and Clemson, Lindy and Schwenk, Michael}, note={Article Number: 93} }
RDF
<rdf:RDF xmlns:dcterms="http://purl.org/dc/terms/" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#" xmlns:bibo="http://purl.org/ontology/bibo/" xmlns:dspace="http://digital-repositories.org/ontologies/dspace/0.1.0#" xmlns:foaf="http://xmlns.com/foaf/0.1/" xmlns:void="http://rdfs.org/ns/void#" xmlns:xsd="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema#" > <rdf:Description rdf:about="https://kops.uni-konstanz.de/server/rdf/resource/123456789/54632"> <dcterms:rights rdf:resource="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/"/> <void:sparqlEndpoint rdf:resource="http://localhost/fuseki/dspace/sparql"/> <dc:creator>Clemson, Lindy</dc:creator> <foaf:homepage rdf:resource="http://localhost:8080/"/> <bibo:uri rdf:resource="https://kops.uni-konstanz.de/handle/123456789/54632"/> <dc:contributor>Schwenk, Michael</dc:contributor> <dspace:hasBitstream rdf:resource="https://kops.uni-konstanz.de/bitstream/123456789/54632/3/Reicherzer_2-15z3slpjs9dyu3.pdf"/> <dc:contributor>Becker, Clemens</dc:contributor> <dc:creator>Jansen, Carl-Philipp</dc:creator> <dcterms:issued>2021</dcterms:issued> <dcterms:available rdf:datatype="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema#dateTime">2021-08-18T08:34:03Z</dcterms:available> <dc:contributor>Labudek, Sarah</dc:contributor> <dc:creator>Kramer-Gmeiner, Franziska</dc:creator> <dcterms:hasPart rdf:resource="https://kops.uni-konstanz.de/bitstream/123456789/54632/3/Reicherzer_2-15z3slpjs9dyu3.pdf"/> <dc:contributor>Clemson, Lindy</dc:contributor> <dc:contributor>Kramer-Gmeiner, Franziska</dc:contributor> <dcterms:abstract xml:lang="eng">Background:<br />The Lifestyle-integrated Functional Exercise (LiFE) program is an effective but resource-intensive fall prevention program delivered one-to-one in participants’ homes. A recently developed group-based LiFE (gLiFE) could enhance large-scale implementability and decrease resource intensity. The aim of this qualitative focus group study is to compare participants’ experiences regarding acceptability of gLiFE vs LiFE.<br /><br />Methods:<br />Programs were delivered in seven group sessions (gLiFE) or seven individual home visits (LiFE) within a multi-center, randomized non-inferiority trial. Four structured focus group discussions (90–100 min duration; one per format and study site) on content, structure, and subjective effects of gLiFE and LiFE were conducted. Qualitative content analysis using the method of inductive category formation by Mayring was applied for data analysis. Coding was managed using NVivo.<br /><br />Results:<br />In both formats, participants (N = 30, 22 women, ngLiFE = 15, nLiFE = 15, mean age 78.8 ± 6.6 years) were positive about content, structure, and support received by trainers. Participants reflected on advantages of both formats: the social aspects of learning the program in a peer group (gLiFE), and benefits of learning the program at home (LiFE). In gLiFE, some difficulties with the implementation of activities were reported. In both formats, the majority of participants reported positive outcomes and successful implementation of new movement habits.<br /><br />Conclusion:<br />This is the first study to examine participants’ views on and experiences with gLiFE and LiFE, revealing strengths and limitations of both formats that can be used for program refinement. Both formats were highly acceptable to participants, suggesting that gLiFE may have similar potential to be adopted by adults aged 70 years and older compared to LiFE.</dcterms:abstract> <dc:contributor>Nystrand, Malin J.</dc:contributor> <dcterms:isPartOf rdf:resource="https://kops.uni-konstanz.de/server/rdf/resource/123456789/35"/> <dspace:isPartOfCollection rdf:resource="https://kops.uni-konstanz.de/server/rdf/resource/123456789/35"/> <dc:creator>Nystrand, Malin J.</dc:creator> <dc:creator>Nerz, Corinna</dc:creator> <dc:contributor>Jansen, Carl-Philipp</dc:contributor> <dc:creator>Schwenk, Michael</dc:creator> <dc:creator>Labudek, Sarah</dc:creator> <dc:contributor>Reicherzer, Leah</dc:contributor> <dc:creator>Becker, Clemens</dc:creator> <dc:rights>Attribution 4.0 International</dc:rights> <dc:date rdf:datatype="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema#dateTime">2021-08-18T08:34:03Z</dc:date> <dcterms:title>Group or individual lifestyle-integrated functional exercise (LiFE)? : A qualitative analysis of acceptability</dcterms:title> <dc:language>eng</dc:language> <dc:contributor>Nerz, Corinna</dc:contributor> <dc:creator>Reicherzer, Leah</dc:creator> </rdf:Description> </rdf:RDF>