Health and movement · 2 min read

A brief supported routine improved mobility tests in older adults

Among 97 older adults with walking difficulty, those in the routine improved more on chair rises and balance. Six had discomfort or injuries.

How we make these readings

The study, in plain language

The team tested a program called FAST-2 with 97 older adults who had difficulty walking, randomly assigning who started first. One group began a routine of four exercises, with breaks, goals, and reminders, along with remote support sessions. The comparison group continued usual care and could access the program later.

After 12 weeks, improvement over the comparison group was greater on chair-rise and one-leg-balance tests. Those changes reflected the full program, including exercises and support, and measured specific abilities.

There were also seven orthopedic discomfort or injury episodes that authors considered possibly, probably, or definitely related to the intervention, among six people. Most led to a missed session, three people consulted a professional, and one participant with shoulder pain spent a night under observation to rule out a heart attack. This does not mean a heart attack was diagnosed.

The key idea

A brief routine with remote support improved some mobility tests more than usual care, with discomfort or injury in some participants.

Something to think about

When you read that a routine is brief, what else came with it? Here there were goals, reminders, and support sessions, and researchers measured specific abilities such as standing from a chair.

The original study

Brief daily functional strength training to improve functional performance in older adults with mobility disability: A randomized trial

PLOS One. Published .

Study authors (14)

Smita Dandekar, Jordan Kurth, Yimeng Shang, Jonathan G. Stine, Matthew A. Ladwig, David E. Conroy, Kathryn H. Schmitz, Liza S. Rovniak, Matthew Silvis, Margaret Danilovich, Noel Ballentine, Natalia Pierwola-Gawin, Shouhao Zhou, Christopher Sciamanna

DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0336748

Source under CC BY 4.0. English adaptation and explanation by PaperFlow, with AI assistance. The text has been reorganized for a general audience; it is not the complete paper and does not imply endorsement by its authors.

One study alone does not represent a field's consensus. Educational content does not replace professional advice. Report a possible error.