Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-dsjbd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-23T23:43:28.971Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Long-term Evaluation of the “Get Fit for Active Living” Program

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  04 January 2017

Liza Stathokostas ,
Mark Speechley ,
Robert M. D. Little ,
Shawna Doerksen ,
Jennifer Copeland  and
Donald H. Paterson
Liza Stathokostas*
Affiliation:
School of Kinesiology, Faculty of Health Sciences, Western University
Mark Speechley
Affiliation:
Department of Epidemiology & Biostatistics and Schulich Interfaculty Program in Public Health Department of Recreation, Western University
Robert M. D. Little
Affiliation:
School of Kinesiology, Faculty of Health Sciences, Western University
Shawna Doerksen
Affiliation:
Park and Tourism Management, Pennsylvania State University
Jennifer Copeland
Affiliation:
Department of Kinesiology and Physical Education, University of Lethbridge
Donald H. Paterson
Affiliation:
School of Kinesiology, Faculty of Health Sciences, Western University
*
‡La correspondance et les demandes de tire-à-part doivent être adressées à : / Correspondence and requests for offprints should be sent to: Liza Stathokostas, Ph.D. 3M Centre 2225 School of Kinesiology, Faculty of Health Sciences Western University London, ON, N6A 3K7 ([email protected])
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This study examined six- and 12-month levels of adherence to physical activity, functional changes, and psychosocial determinants of physical activity in 176 older adults who participated in the “Get Fit for Active Living (GFAL)” pilot program. Functional and psychosocial measures were conducted in person at six months; psychosocial measures and physical activity participation were assessed by telephone interview at 12 months. Ninety-five per cent were retained in the study at the six-month follow-up, and 88 per cent at 12 months. The self-reported adherence rate to exercise at 12 months was 66 per cent. The main reason for continued exercise participation was to maintain health (45%). Reasons for nonadherence were illness (38%) and lack of motivation (32%). Results identify factors associated with positive behaviour change that health promoters can utilize when targeting the older adult population. The GFAL project results can serve as a model for sustainable, community-based older-adult exercise programs.

Résumé

Cette étude a examiné les niveaux de 6 et 12 mois d’adhésion à l’activité physique, les changements fonctionnels et les déterminants psychosociaux de l’activité physique chez 176 adultes âgés qui ont participé au programme pilote «Get Fit for Active Living» (GFAL). Des mesures fonctionnelles et psychosociales ont été menées en personne à 6 mois; à 12 mois, les mesures psychosociales et la participation à l’activité physique ont été évaluées par interview téléphonique. Quatre-vingt-quinze pour cent ont été retenus dans l’étude au suivi de 6 mois, et 88 pour cent à 12 mois. Le taux d’adhésion autodéclaré à l’exercice à 12 mois était de 66%. La principale raison de la participation continue dans l’exercice était de maintenir la santé (45%). Les motifs de non-respect étaient la maladie (38%) et le manque de motivation (32%). Les résultats identifient les facteurs associés aux changements positifs de comportement que les promoteurs peuvent utiliser lorsqu’ils ciblent une population âgée. Les résultats du projet GFAL peuvent servir de modèle pour des programmes d’exercices durables et communautaires pour les aînés.

Keywords

agingadherencecommunity-basedexercisefunctional fitnessvieillissementadhésioncommunautaireexerciceforme fonctionnelle
Type
Articles
Information
Canadian Journal on Aging / La Revue canadienne du vieillissement , Volume 36 , Issue 1 , March 2017 , pp. 67 - 80
Check for updates
Copyright
Copyright © Canadian Association on Gerontology 2017 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

* The authors thank research assistants Tara Clark and Matthew McDonald. Also, thanks to Larry Stitt for his statistical consultation and data analyses.
† In the original online version of this article, the affiliations of Mark Speechley and Shawna Doerksen were incorrectly listed. A corrigendum in which the affiliations are correctly listed has been published on page 123 of this issue.
Funding for this study was supported by a Canadian Institute of Health Research Mobility in Aging Operating Grant (grant number 187595).

References

Andre, N., & Dishman, R. K. (2012). Evidence for the construct validity of self-motivation as a correlate of exercise adherence in French older adults. Journal of Aging and Physical Activity, 20, 231–245.Google Scholar
Baruth, M. & Wilcox, S. (2013). Predictors of physical activity 6-months post intervention in the active for life initiative. Journal of Physical Activity and Health, 11(2), 256–65.Google Scholar
Baruth, M., Wilcox, S., Wegley, S., Buchner, D. M., Ory, M. G., Phillips, A., ... & Bazzarre, T. L. (2011). Changes in physical functioning in the active living every day program of the active for life initiative. International Journal of Behavioral Medicine, 18(3), 199–208.Google Scholar
Bassett, D. R. (2012). Device-based monitoring in physical activity and public health research. Physiological Measurement, 33, 1769–1783.Google Scholar
Cohen-Mansfield, J., Marx, M. S., & Guralnik, J. M. (2003). Motivators and barriers to exercise in an older community-dwelling population. Journal of Aging and Physical Activity, 11, 242–253.Google Scholar
Colley, R. C., Garriguet, D., Janssen, I., Craig, C. L., Clarke, J., & Tremblay, M. S. (2011). Physical activity of Canadian adults: Accelerometer results from the 2007 to 2009 Canadian Health Measures Survey. Statistics Canada Health Reports, Vol. 22(1). http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/82-003-x/2011001/article/11396-eng.htm Google Scholar
Conn, V. S., Minor, M. A., Burks, K. J., Rantz, M. J., & Pomeroy, S. H. (2003). Integrative review of physical activity intervention research with aging adults. Journal of the American Geriatrics Society, 51, 1159–1168.Google Scholar
Costello, E., Kafchinski, M., Vrazel, J., & Sullivan, P. (2011). Motivators, barriers, and beliefs regarding physical activity in an older adult population. Journal of Geriatric Physical Therapy, 34, 138–147.Google Scholar
Cress, M. E., Buchner, D., Rimmer, J., Prohaska, T., Brown, M., Macera, C., ... & Chodzko-Zajko, W. (2004). Physical activity programs and behaviour counselling in older adult populations. Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise, 36(11), 1997–2003.Google Scholar
Gill, D. P., Jones, G. R., Zou, G. Y., & Speechley, M. (2008). The Phone-FITT: A brief physical activity interview for older adults. Journal of the American Planning Association, 16, 292–315.Google Scholar
Graf, C. (2006). Functional decline in hospitalized older adults. The American Journal of Nursing, 106, 58–67.Google Scholar
Guralnik, J. M., Simonsick, E. M., Ferrucci, L., Glynn, R. J., Berkman, L. F., Blazer, D. G., ... &Wallace, R. B. (1994). A short physical performance battery assessing lower extremity function: association with self-reported disability and prediction of mortality and nursing home admission. Journal of Gerontology, 49(2), M85–M94.Google Scholar
King, A. C., Puglisi, C. M., Phillips, W., Oka, R., Rodenburg, A., & Haskell, W. L. (2000). Comparative effects of two physical activity programs on measured and perceived physical functioning and other health-related quality of life outcomes in older adults. Journals of Gerontology Series A: Biological Sciences and Medical Sciences, 55, M74–M83.Google Scholar
Marcus, B. H., Napolitano, M. A., King, A. C., Lewis, B. A., Whiteley, J. A., Albrecht, A., ... & Jakicic, J. (2007). Telephone versus print delivery of an individualized motivationally tailored physical activity intervention: Project STRIDE. Health Psychology, 26(4), 401.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Marcus, B. H., Selby, V. C., Niaura, R. S., & Rossi, J. S. (1992). Self-efficacy and the stages of exercise behavior change. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 63, 60–66.Google Scholar
Marcus, B. H., Williams, D. M., Dubbert, P. M., Sallis, J. F., King, A. C., Yancey, A. K., … & Claytor, R. P. (2006). Physical Activity Intervention Studies. Circulation, 114, 2739–2752.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
McAuley, E. (1993). Self-efficacy and the maintenance of exercise participation in older adults. Journal of Behavioral Medicine, 16, 103–113.Google Scholar
Morey, M. C., Dubbert, P. M., Doyle, M. E., MacAller, H., Crowley, G. M., Kuchibhatla, M., … & Horner, R. D. (2003). From supervised to unsupervised exercise: Factors associated with exercise adherence. Journal of Aging and Physical Activity, 11, 351–368.Google Scholar
Muller-Riemenschneider, F., Reinhold, T., Nocon, M., & Willich, S. N. (2008). Long-term effectiveness of interventions promoting physical activity: A systematic review. Preventive Medicine, 47, 354–368.Google Scholar
O’Neill, K., & Reid, G. (1991). Perceived barriers to physical activity by older adults. Canadian Journal of Public Health, 82, 392–396.Google Scholar
Ostir, G. V., Cohen-Mansfield, J., Leveille, S., Volpato, S., & Guralnik, J. M. (2003). The association of positive and negative affect and exercise self-efficacy in older adults. Journal of Aging and Physical Activity, 11, 265–274.Google Scholar
Rejeski, W. J., Marsh, A. P., Chmelo, E., Prescott, A. J., Dobrosielski, M., Walkup, M. P., ... & Kritchevsky, S. (2009). The lifestyle interventions and independence for elders pilot (LIFE-P): 2-year follow-up. The Journals of Gerontology Series A: Biological Sciences and Medical Sciences, 64(4), 462–467.Google Scholar
Rejeski, W. J., Fielding, R. A., Blair, S. N., Guralnik, J. M., Gill, T. M., Hadley, E. C., ... & Pahor, M. (2005). The lifestyle interventions and independence for elders (LIFE) pilot study: Design and methods. Contemporary clinical trials, 26(2), 141–154.Google Scholar
Rikil, R. E., & Jones, C. J. (2001). Senior Fitness Test Manual. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.Google Scholar
Simonsick, E. M., Guralnik, J. M., Volpato, S., Balfour, J., & Fried, L. P. (2005). Just get out the door! Importance of walking outside the home for maintaining mobility: Findings from the women’s health and aging study. Journal of the American Geriatric Society, 53, 198–203.Google Scholar
Stathokostas, L., Speechley, M., Little, R. M. D., Doerksen, S., & Paterson, D. H. (2016). The Get Fit for Active Living demonstration project: Evaluation of a Canadian older adult physical activity education program. Evaluation report submitted to the Canadian Centre for Activity and Aging. London, ON: Western University. Retrieved from https://www.researchgate.net/publication/301221346_The_Get_Fit_for_Active_Living_Demonstration_Project_Evaluation_of_a_Canadian_Older_Adult_Physical_Activity_Education_Program Google Scholar
Wilcox, S., Dowda, M., Griffin, S. F., Rheaume, C., Ory, M. G., Leviton, L., … & Estabrooks, P. A. (2006). Results of the first year of active for life: Translation of 2 evidence-based physical activity programs for older adults into community settings. American Journal of Public Health, 96(7), 1201–1209.Google Scholar
Wójcicki, T. R., White, S. M., & McAuley, E. (2009). Assessing outcome expectations in older adults: The multidimensional outcome expectations for exercise scale. The Journals of Gerontology Series B: Psychological Sciences and Social Sciences, 64(1), 33–40.Google Scholar