BACKGROUND
Despite the crucial role of regular physical activity (PA) for preventing chronic non-communicable diseases, fewer than half of older adults in Germany engage in the recommended levels of endurance training.
OBJECTIVE
The aim of this study was to compare acceptance and effectiveness of two interventions (web- vs. print-based) for PA promotion among initially inactive community-dwelling older adults aged 60 years and above in a nine-month randomized trial with a cross-over design.
METHODS
Participants were recruited offline and randomized to one of the following interventions for self-monitoring PA: (a) a print-based intervention (PRINT n=113), (b) a web-based intervention (WEB, n=129). Thirty percent (n=38) of those in group (b) received a PA tracker in addition to WEB (WEB+, (c)). After randomization, participants and researchers were not blinded. Participants’ intervention preferences at baseline were assessed retrospectively. All intervention groups were offered ten weekly face-to-face group sessions led by trained assistants. Afterwards, participants could choose to stay in their group or cross over to one of the other groups and group sessions were continued monthly for another six months. Three-dimensional accelerometers to assess PA and sedentary behavior (SB) at baseline (T0), three-month (T1) and nine-month follow-ups (T2) were employed. Adherence to PA recommendations, attendance of group sessions, and acceptance of the interventions were assessed via self-administered paper-based questionnaires. Linear mixed models were used to calculate differences in moderate-to-vigorous PA (MVPA) and SB between time points and intervention groups.
RESULTS
One-hundred and ninety-five participants completed T1. Only n=1 changed from WEB to PRINT and n=15 moved from PRINT to WEB (WEB-WEB: n=103, PRINT-PRINT: n=76) when offered to cross over at T1. One-hundred and sixty participants completed T2. MVPA in min per day increased between baseline and T1, but these within-group changes in time disappeared after adjusting for covariates. MVPA decreased by 9 min per day between baseline and T2 (βtime = -9.37, 95% CI: [-18.58; -0.16]), regardless of intervention group (WEB vs. PRINT: βgroup*time = -3.76, 95% CI: [-13.33; 5.82], WEB+ vs. PRINT: βgroup*time = 1.40, 95% CI: [-11.04; 13.83]). Nineteen percent of the participants met PA recommendations at T0, 20% at T1, and 20% at T2. For SB, there were no significant group differences and group-by-time interactions, neither at T1 nor at T2. Intervention acceptance was generally high. Use of intervention material was high to moderate at T1 (e.g., the PA diary was used by over 65% at least once a week) and decreased by T2 (40-50% in PRINT and in WEB used the PA diary at least once a week, and 58% in WEB+).
CONCLUSIONS
Despite high levels of acceptance of web- and print-based interventions for PA promotion and little movement between groups at T1, when given the choice, participation was not associated with increases in PA or decreases in SB over time.
CLINICALTRIAL
German Clinical Trials Register DRKS00016073 (Date of registration 10–01-2019).
A Web-based versus a Print-based Physical Activity Intervention for Community-dwelling Older Adults: Randomized Trial With a Cross-over Design (Preprint)
