Skip to main content
PMC home page
Medline Book to support NIHPA logoLink to Medline Book to support NIHPA
. 2024 Sep;28(53):1–152. doi: 10.3310/KPGN4216

Chair-based yoga programme for older adults with multimorbidity: RCT with embedded economic and process evaluations.

Garry Alan Tew, Laura Wiley, Lesley Ward, Jessica Grace Hugill-Jones, Camila Sofia Maturana, Caroline Marie Fairhurst, Kerry Jane Bell, Laura Bissell, Alison Booth, Jenny Howsam, Valerie Mount, Tim Rapley, Sarah Jane Ronaldson, Fiona Rose, David John Torgerson, David Yates, Catherine Elizabeth Hewitt
PMCID: PMC11417643  PMID: 39259017

Abstract

BACKGROUND

Older adults with multimorbidity experience impaired health-related quality of life and treatment burden. Yoga has the potential to improve several aspects of health and well-being. The British Wheel of Yoga's Gentle Years Yoga© programme was developed specifically for older adults, including those with chronic conditions. A pilot trial demonstrated feasibility of using Gentle Years Yoga in this population, but there was limited evidence of its effectiveness and cost-effectiveness.

OBJECTIVE

To determine the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of the Gentle Years Yoga programme in addition to usual care versus usual care alone in older adults with multimorbidity.

DESIGN

Pragmatic, multisite, individually randomised controlled trial with embedded economic and process evaluations.

SETTING

Participants were recruited from 15 general practices in England and Wales from July 2019 with final follow-up in October 2022.

PARTICIPANTS

Community-dwelling adults aged 65 years and over with multimorbidity, defined as two or more chronic health conditions from a predefined list.

INTERVENTIONS

All participants continued with any usual care provided by primary, secondary, community and social services. The intervention group was offered a 12-week programme of Gentle Years Yoga.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

The primary outcome and end point were health-related quality of life measured using the EuroQol-5 Dimensions, five-level version utility index score over 12 months. Secondary outcomes were health-related quality of life, depression, anxiety, loneliness, incidence of falls, adverse events and healthcare resource use.

RESULTS

The mean age of the 454 randomised participants was 73.5 years; 60.6% were female, and participants had a median of three chronic conditions. The primary analysis included 422 participants (intervention, n = 227 of 240, 94.6%; usual care, n = 195 of 214, 91.1%). There was no statistically or clinically significant difference in the EuroQol-5 Dimensions, five-level version utility index score over 12 months: the predicted mean score for the intervention group was 0.729 (95% confidence interval 0.712 to 0.747) and for usual care it was 0.710 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.691 to 0.729], with an adjusted mean difference of 0.020 favouring intervention (95% CI -0.006 to 0.045, p = 0.14). No statistically significant differences were observed in secondary outcomes, except for the pain items of the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System-29. No serious, related adverse events were reported. The intervention cost £80.85 more per participant (95% CI £76.73 to £84.97) than usual care, generated an additional 0.0178 quality-adjusted life-years per participant (95% CI 0.0175 to 0.0180) and had a 79% probability of being cost-effective at the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence threshold of £20,000 per quality-adjusted life-year gained. The intervention was acceptable to participants, with seven courses delivered face to face and 12 online.

LIMITATIONS

Self-reported outcome data raise the potential for bias in an unblinded trial. The COVID-19 pandemic affected recruitment, follow-up and the mode of intervention delivery.

CONCLUSIONS

Although the Gentle Years Yoga programme was not associated with any statistically significant benefits in terms of health-related quality of life, mental health, loneliness or falls, the intervention was safe, acceptable to most participants and highly valued by some. The economic evaluation suggests that the intervention could be cost-effective.

FUTURE WORK

Longer-term cost-effectiveness modelling and identifying subgroups of people who are most likely to benefit from this type of intervention.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

This trial is registered as ISRCTN13567538.

FUNDING

This award was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme (NIHR award ref: 17/94/36) and is published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 28, No. 53. See the NIHR Funding and Awards website for further award information.

Plain language summary

It is common for older adults to have two or more long-term health conditions. These conditions affect quality of life differently, with some people feeling well and others needing healthcare support. The Gentle Years Yoga programme was developed to improve quality of life for older adults, including those with long-term health conditions. We wanted to see how well the programme worked and if it offered good value for money for the NHS. We tested whether offering a 12-week course of Gentle Years Yoga improved the quality of life and reduced anxiety, depression, loneliness and falls for people aged 65 years and over who had two or more long-term health conditions. We recruited 454 people through general practices across England and Wales, with 240 people selected at random to be invited to take part in the Gentle Years Yoga programme and the other 214 to continue with their usual care and not be offered Gentle Years Yoga. The average age of participants was 74 years, nearly two-thirds were female and the number of long-term health conditions participants had ranged from two to nine (average was three). They completed four questionnaires over a 12-month period. We also interviewed some of the participants and the yoga teachers to find out how the approach worked in practice. The yoga was delivered either face to face or online. We did not find any significant benefits in terms of quality of life, anxiety, depression, loneliness or falls. At interview, some yoga participants noted no or a modest impact on their health or lifestyle, while others described Gentle Years Yoga as transformative, having substantial impacts and improvements on their physical health and emotional well-being. Because running the yoga classes was relatively inexpensive and some insignificant benefits were seen, the Gentle Years Yoga programme may be good value for money.

Full text of this article can be found in Bookshelf.

References

  1. Tew GA, Bissell L, Corbacho B, Fairhurst C, Howsam J, Hugill-Jones J, et al. Yoga for older adults with multimorbidity (the Gentle Years Yoga Trial): study protocol for a randomised controlled trial. Trials 2021;22(1):269. doi: 10.1186/s13063-021-05217-5. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  2. Johnston MC, Crilly M, Black C, Prescott GJ, Mercer SW. Defining and measuring multimorbidity: a systematic review of systematic reviews. Eur J Public Health 2019;29(1):182–9. doi: 10.1093/eurpub/cky098. [DOI] [PubMed]
  3. Kingston A, Robinson L, Booth H, Knapp M, Jagger C; MODEM project. Projections of multi-morbidity in the older population in England to 2035: estimates from the Population Ageing and Care Simulation (PACSim) model. Age Ageing 2018;47(3):374–80. doi: 10.1093/ageing/afx201. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  4. Wolff JL, Starfield B, Anderson G. Prevalence, expenditures, and complications of multiple chronic conditions in the elderly. Arch Intern Med 2002;162(20):2269–76. doi: 10.1001/archinte.162.20.2269. [DOI] [PubMed]
  5. Salisbury C, Johnson L, Purdy S, Valderas JM, Montgomery AA. Epidemiology and impact of multimorbidity in primary care: a retrospective cohort study. Br J Gen Pract 2011;61(582):e12–21. doi: 10.3399/bjgp11X548929. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  6. McPhail SM. Multimorbidity in chronic disease: impact on health care resources and costs. Risk Manag Healthc Policy 2016;9:143–56. doi: 10.2147/RMHP.S97248. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  7. Eckardt M, Brettschneider C, van den Bussche H, Konig HH; MultiCare Study Group. Analysis of health care costs in elderly patients with multiple chronic conditions using a finite mixture of generalized linear models. Health Econ 2017;26(5):582–99. doi: 10.1002/hec.3334. [DOI] [PubMed]
  8. Smith SM, Wallace E, Clyne B, Boland F, Fortin M. Interventions for improving outcomes in patients with multimorbidity in primary care and community setting: a systematic review. Syst Rev 2021;10(1):271. doi: 10.1186/s13643-021-01817-z. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  9. McCall MC, Ward A, Roberts NW, Heneghan C. Overview of systematic reviews: yoga as a therapeutic intervention for adults with acute and chronic health conditions. Evid Based Complement Alternat Med 2013;2013:945895. doi: 10.1155/2013/945895. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  10. Sivaramakrishnan D, Fitzsimons C, Kelly P, Ludwig K, Mutrie N, Saunders DH, Baker G. The effects of yoga compared to active and inactive controls on physical function and health related quality of life in older adults – systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials. Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act 2019;16(1):33. doi: 10.1186/s12966-019-0789-2. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  11. Wieland LS, Skoetz N, Pilkington K, Vempati R, D’Adamo CR, Berman BM. Yoga treatment for chronic non-specific low back pain. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2017;1(1):CD010671. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD010671.pub2. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  12. Yang ZY, Zhong HB, Mao C, Yuan JQ, Huang YF, Wu XY, et al. Yoga for asthma. Sao Paulo Med J 2016;134(4):368. doi: 10.1590/1516-3180.20161344T2. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  13. Cramer H, Lauche R, Klose P, Lange S, Langhorst J, Dobos GJ. Yoga for improving health-related quality of life, mental health and cancer-related symptoms in women diagnosed with breast cancer. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2017;1(1):CD010802. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD010802.pub2. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  14. Hartley L, Dyakova M, Holmes J, Clarke A, Lee MS, Ernst E, Rees K. Yoga for the primary prevention of cardiovascular disease. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2014;2014(5):CD010072. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD010072.pub2. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  15. Patel NK, Newstead AH, Ferrer RL. The effects of yoga on physical functioning and health related quality of life in older adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Altern Complement Med 2012;18(10):902–17. doi: 10.1089/acm.2011.0473. [DOI] [PubMed]
  16. Gothe NP, McAuley E. Yoga is as good as stretching-strengthening exercises in improving functional fitness outcomes: results from a randomized controlled trial. J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci 2016;71(3):406–11. doi: 10.1093/gerona/glv127. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  17. Youkhana S, Dean CM, Wolff M, Sherrington C, Tiedemann A. Yoga-based exercise improves balance and mobility in people aged 60 and over: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Age Ageing 2016;45(1):21–9. doi: 10.1093/ageing/afv175. [DOI] [PubMed]
  18. Andronis L, Kinghorn P, Qiao S, Whitehurst DG, Durrell S, McLeod H. Cost-effectiveness of non-invasive and non-pharmacological interventions for low back pain: a systematic literature review. Appl Health Econ Health Policy 2017;15(2):173–201. doi: 10.1007/s40258-016-0268-8. [DOI] [PubMed]
  19. Tew GA, Howsam J, Hardy M, Bissell L. Adapted yoga to improve physical function and health-related quality of life in physically-inactive older adults: a randomised controlled pilot trial. BMC Geriatr 2017;17(1):131. doi: 10.1186/s12877-017-0520-6. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  20. Smelt AF, van der Weele GM, Blom JW, Gussekloo J, Assendelft WJ. How usual is usual care in pragmatic intervention studies in primary care? An overview of recent trials. Br J Gen Pract 2010;60(576):e305–18. doi: 10.3399/bjgp10X514819. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  21. Herdman M, Gudex C, Lloyd A, Janssen M, Kind P, Parkin D, et al. Development and preliminary testing of the new five-level version of EQ-5D (EQ-5D-5L). Qual Life Res 2011;20(10):1727–36. doi: 10.1007/s11136-011-9903-x. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  22. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. Position Statement on Use of the EQ-5D-5L Valuation Set for England (updated October 2019). 2019. URL: www.nice.org.uk/about/what-we-do/our-programmes/nice-guidance/technology-appraisal-guidance/eq-5d-5l (accessed 22 June 2023).
  23. van Hout B, Janssen MF, Feng YS, Kohlmann T, Busschbach J, Golicki D, et al. Interim scoring for the EQ-5D-5L: mapping the EQ-5D-5L to EQ-5D-3L value sets. Value Health 2012;15(5):708–15. doi: 10.1016/j.jval.2012.02.008. [DOI] [PubMed]
  24. Salisbury C, Man MS, Bower P, Guthrie B, Chaplin K, Gaunt DM, et al. Management of multimorbidity using a patient-centred care model: a pragmatic cluster-randomised trial of the 3D approach. Lancet 2018;392(10141):41–50. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(18)31308-4. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  25. Fischer F, Gibbons C, Coste J, Valderas JM, Rose M, Leplege A. Measurement invariance and general population reference values of the PROMIS Profile 29 in the UK, France, and Germany. Qual Life Res 2018;27(4):999–1014. doi: 10.1007/s11136-018-1785-8. [DOI] [PubMed]
  26. Kroenke K, Strine TW, Spitzer RL, Williams JB, Berry JT, Mokdad AH. The PHQ-8 as a measure of current depression in the general population. J Affect Disord 2009;114(1–3):163–73. doi: 10.1016/j.jad.2008.06.026. [DOI] [PubMed]
  27. Spitzer RL, Kroenke K, Williams JB, Lowe B. A brief measure for assessing generalized anxiety disorder: the GAD-7. Arch Intern Med 2006;166(10):1092–7. doi: 10.1001/archinte.166.10.1092. [DOI] [PubMed]
  28. Hughes ME, Waite LJ, Hawkley LC, Cacioppo JT. A short scale for measuring loneliness in large surveys: results from two population-based studies. Res Aging 2004;26(6):655–72. doi: 10.1177/0164027504268574. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  29. Steptoe A, Shankar A, Demakakos P, Wardle J. Social isolation, loneliness, and all-cause mortality in older men and women. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 2013;110(15):5797–801. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1219686110. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  30. Mattsson M, Sandqvist G, Hesselstrand R, Nordin A, Bostrom C. Validity and reliability of the Patient Health Questionnaire-8 in Swedish for individuals with systemic sclerosis. Rheumatol Int 2020;40(10):1675–87. doi: 10.1007/s00296-020-04641-1. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  31. Bayliss EA, Ellis JL, Steiner JF. Seniors’ self-reported multimorbidity captured biopsychosocial factors not incorporated into two other data-based morbidity measures. J Clin Epidemiol 2009;62(5):550–7.e1. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2008.05.002. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  32. Walters SJ, Brazier JE. Comparison of the minimally important difference for two health state utility measures: EQ-5D and SF-6D. Qual Life Res 2005;14(6):1523–32. doi: 10.1007/s11136-004-7713-0. [DOI] [PubMed]
  33. McClure NS, Sayah FA, Xie F, Luo N, Johnson JA. Instrument-defined estimates of the minimally important difference for EQ-5D-5L index scores. Value Health 2017;20(4):644–50. doi: 10.1016/j.jval.2016.11.015. [DOI] [PubMed]
  34. StataCorp. Stata Statistical Software: Release 17. College Station, TX: StataCorp LLC; 2021.
  35. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. Guide to the Methods of Technology Appraisal. London: NICE; 2013. [PubMed]
  36. EuroQol Research Foundation. EQ-5D-5L User Guide: Basic Information on How to Use the EQ-5D-5L Instrument. 2019. URL: https://euroqol.org/publications/user-guides (accessed 22 June 2023).
  37. Billingham L, Abrams KR, Jones DR. Methods for the analysis of quality-of-life and survival data in health technology assessment. Health Technol Assess 1998;3(10):1–152. [PubMed]
  38. Department of Health. NHS Reference Costs 2020/21. Department of Health; 2020. URL: www.england.nhs.uk/costing-in-the-nhs/national-cost-collection/ (accessed 22 June 2023).
  39. Jones K, Burns A. Unit Costs of Health and Social Care 2021. Canterbury: University of Kent, Personal Social Services Research Unit; 2021. URL: www.pssru.ac.uk/project-pages/unit-costs/unit-costs-2020/ (accessed 22 June 2023).
  40. British Medical Association, Royal Pharmaceutical Society. British National Formulary (online). London: BMJ Group and Pharmaceutical Press; 2022. URL: https://bnf.nice.org.uk/ (accessed 22 June 2023).
  41. NHS Business Services Authority, NHS Prescription Services. NHS Electronic Drug Tariff (online). URL: www.drugtariff.nhsbsa.nhs.uk2022 (accessed 22 June 2023).
  42. Curtis L, Burns A. Unit Costs of Health and Social Care 2015. Canterbury: University of Kent, Personal Social Services Research Unit; 2015. URL: www.pssru.ac.uk/project-pages/unit-costs/unit-costs-2015/ (accessed 22 June 2023).
  43. Curtis L. Unit Costs of Health and Social Care 2014. Canterbury: University of Kent, Personal Social Services Research Unit; 2014. URL: www.pssru.ac.uk/project-pages/unit-costs/unit-costs-2014/ (accessed 22 June 2023).
  44. Department of Health. NHS Reference Costs 2017/18. Department of Health; 2017. URL: www.england.nhs.uk/costing-in-the-nhs/national-cost-collection/#archive (accessed 22 June 2023).
  45. Bupa. Private GP Appointments. 2022. URL: www.Bupa.co.uk/health/payg/gp-services (accessed 22 June 2023).
  46. myTribe Health Insurance. What Is the Cost of Private Physiotherapy? 2022. URL: www.mytribeinsurance.co.uk/treatment/what-is-the-cost-of-private-physiotherapy (accessed 22 June 2023).
  47. Psychiatry-UK. Psychiatry Fees – Explained. 2022. URL: www.Psychiatry-uk.com/fees (accessed 22 June 2023).
  48. White IR, Horton NJ, Carpenter J, Pocock SJ. Strategy for intention to treat analysis in randomised trials with missing outcome data. BMJ 2011;342:d40. doi: 10.1136/bmj.d40. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  49. White IR, Royston P, Wood AM. Multiple imputation using chained equations: issues and guidance for practice. Stat Med 2011;30(4):377–99. doi: 10.1002/sim.4067. [DOI] [PubMed]
  50. Rubin DB, Wiley I. Multiple Imputation for Nonresponse in Surveys. New York: Wiley; 1987.
  51. Stinnett AA, Mullahy J. Net health benefits: a new framework for the analysis of uncertainty in cost-effectiveness analysis. Med Decis Making 1998;18(2 Suppl.):S68–80. doi: 10.1177/0272989X98018002S09. [DOI] [PubMed]
  52. Fenwick E, O’Brien BJ, Briggs A. Cost-effectiveness acceptability curves – facts, fallacies and frequently asked questions. Health Econ 2004;13(5):405–15. doi: 10.1002/hec.903. [DOI] [PubMed]
  53. Bell K, Corbacho B, Ronaldson S, Richardson G, Hood K, Sanders J, et al., Building Blocks Trial Group. Costs and consequences of the Family Nurse Partnership (FNP) programme in England: evidence from the Building Blocks trial. F1000Research 2019;8:1640. doi: 10.12688/f1000research.20149.1. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  54. Faria R, Gomes M, Epstein D, White IR. A guide to handling missing data in cost-effectiveness analysis conducted within randomised controlled trials. PharmacoEconomics 2014;32(12):1157–70. doi: 10.1007/s40273-014-0193-3. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  55. Hennink MM, Kaiser BN, Marconi VC. Code saturation versus meaning saturation: how many interviews are enough? Qual Health Res 2017; 27(4):591–608. doi: 10.1177/1049732316665344. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  56. Patton MQ. Qualitative Research & Evaluation Methods. 3rd edn. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications Ltd; 2002.
  57. Rapley T. Some pragmatics of data analysis. In Silverman D, editor. Qualitative Research. 5th edn. London: SAGE Publications Ltd; 2021. pp. 341–56.
  58. Layder D. Sociological Practice: Linking Theory and Social Research. London: SAGE Publications Ltd; 1998.
  59. Glaser BG. The constant comparative method of qualitative analysis. Soc Probl 1965;12(4):436–45.
  60. Charmaz K. Constructing Grounded Theory: A Practical Guide Through Qualitative Analysis. London: SAGE Publications Ltd; 2006.
  61. Seale C. The Quality of Qualitative Research. London: SAGE Publications Ltd; 1999.
  62. Ritchie J, Spencer L, O’Connor W. Carrying out qualitative analysis. In Ritchie J, Lewis J, editors. Qualitative Research Practice: A Guide for Social Science Students and Researchers. London: SAGE Publications Ltd; 2003. pp. 219–62.
  63. Powell BJ, Waltz TJ, Chinman MJ, Damschroder LJ, Smith JL, Matthieu MM, et al. A refined compilation of implementation strategies: results from the Expert Recommendations for Implementing Change (ERIC) project. Implement Sci 2015;10:21. doi: 10.1186/s13012-015-0209-1. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  64. McCann SK, Campbell MK, Entwistle VA. Reasons for participating in randomised controlled trials: conditional altruism and considerations for self. Trials 2010;11:31. doi: 10.1186/1745-6215-11-31. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  65. Michie S, van Stralen MM, West R. The behaviour change wheel: a new method for characterising and designing behaviour change interventions. Implement Sci 2011;6:42. doi: 10.1186/1748-5908-6-42. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  66. Brosnan P, Nauphal M, Tompson MC. Acceptability and feasibility of the online delivery of hatha yoga: a systematic review of the literature. Complement Ther Med 2021;60:102742. doi: 10.1016/j.ctim.2021.102742. [DOI] [PubMed]
  67. Haynes A, Gilchrist H, Oliveira JS, Sherrington C, Tiedemann A. ‘I wouldn’t have joined if it wasn’t online’: understanding older people’s engagement with teleyoga classes for fall prevention. BMC Complement Med Ther 2022;22(1):283. doi: 10.1186/s12906-022-03756-1. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  68. Hulur G, Macdonald B. Rethinking social relationships in old age: digitalization and the social lives of older adults. Am Psychol 2020;75(4):554–66. doi: 10.1037/amp0000604. [DOI] [PubMed]
  69. Keohane S, Swarbrick C, Helal. Barriers and Facilitators to Technology Among Older Adults During COVID-19 Pandemic: A Systematic Review Using Thematic Analysis – International Conference on Human-Computer Interaction. Cham: Springer; 2022.
  70. Vereijken B, Helbostad JL. The potential for technology to enhance physical activity among older people. In Nyman SR, Barker A, Haines T, Horton K, Musselwhite C, Peeters G, et al., The Palgrave Handbook of Ageing and Physical Activity Promotion. Cham: Palgrave Macmillan; 2018. pp. 713–31.
  71. Haynes A, Gilchrist H, Oliveira JS, Grunseit A, Sherrington C, Lord S, Tiedemann A. What helps older people persevere with yoga classes? A realist process evaluation of a COVID-19-affected yoga program for fall prevention. BMC Publ Health 2022;22(1):463. doi: 10.1186/s12889-022-12818-5. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  72. Gilchrist H, Haynes A, Oliveira JS, Grunseit A, Sherrington C, Bauman A, et al. The value of mind-body connection in physical activity for older people. J Aging Phys Act 2022;1:8. doi: 10.1123/japa.2021-0503. [DOI] [PubMed]
  73. Butzer B, LoRusso AM, Windsor R, Riley F, Frame K, Khalsa SBS, Conboy L. A qualitative examination of yoga for middle school adolescents. Adv Sch Ment Health Promot 2017;10(3):195–219. doi: 10.1080/1754730X.2017.1325328. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  74. Cramer H, Lauche R, Haller H, Langhorst J, Dobos G, Berger B. ‘I’m more in balance’: a qualitative study of yoga for patients with chronic neck pain. J Altern Complement Med 2013;19(6):536–42. doi: 10.1089/acm.2011.0885. [DOI] [PubMed]
  75. Valderas JM. Multimorbidity, not a health condition or complexity by another name. Eur J Gen Pract 2015;21(4):213–4. doi: 10.3109/13814788.2015.1108404. [DOI] [PubMed]
  76. Ford JC, Ford JA. Multimorbidity: will it stand the test of time? Age Ageing 2018;47(1):6–8. doi: 10.1093/ageing/afx159. [DOI] [PubMed]
  77. Cheshire A, Richards R, Cartwright T. ‘Joining a group was inspiring’: a qualitative study of service users’ experiences of yoga on social prescription. BMC Complement Med Ther 2022;22(1):67. doi: 10.1186/s12906-022-03514-3. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  78. Lillie EO, Patay B, Diamant J, Issell B, Topol EJ, Schork NJ. The n-of-1 clinical trial: the ultimate strategy for individualizing medicine? Per Med 2011;8(2):161–73. doi: 10.2217/pme.11.7. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  79. Schork NJ. Personalized medicine: time for one-person trials. Nature 2015;520(7549):609–11. doi: 10.1038/520609a. [DOI] [PubMed]
  80. Stenman U, Hakama M, Knekt P, Aromaa A, Teppo L, Leinonen J, et al. Measurement and modeling of health-related quality of life. Epidem Demog Public Health 2010;195:130–5.
  81. Cella D, Riley W, Stone A, Rothrock N, Reeve B, Yount S, et al., PROMIS Cooperative Group. The Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) developed and tested its first wave of adult self-reported health outcome item banks: 2005–2008. J Clin Epidemiol 2010;63(11):1179–94. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2010.04.011. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  82. HealthMeasures. PROMIS; 2022 URL: www.healthmeasures.net/explore-measurement-systems/promis. (accessed 22 June 2023).
  83. Huang W, Rose AJ, Bayliss E, Baseman L, Butcher E, Garcia RE, Edelen MO. Adapting summary scores for the PROMIS-29 v2.0 for use among older adults with multiple chronic conditions. Qual Life Res 2019;28(1):199–210. doi: 10.1007/s11136-018-1988-z. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  84. Hanmer J, Dewitt B, Yu L, Tsevat J, Roberts M, Revicki D, et al. Cross-sectional validation of the PROMIS: preference scoring system. PLOS ONE 2018;13(7):e0201093. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0201093. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  85. Pan T, Mulhern B, Viney R, Norman R, Tran-Duy A, Hanmer J, Devlin N. Evidence on the relationship between PROMIS-29 and EQ-5D: a literature review. Qual Life Res 2021;31:79–89. doi: 10.1007/s11136-021-02911-4. [DOI] [PubMed]
  86. Cohen J. Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences. New York: Routledge; 1988.
  87. Shim J, Hamilton DF. Comparative responsiveness of the PROMIS-10 Global Health and EQ-5D questionnaires in patients undergoing total knee arthroplasty. Bone Joint J 2019;101-B(7):832–7. doi: 10.1302/0301-620X.101B7.BJJ-2018-1543.R1. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  88. Dewitt B, Feeny D, Fischhoff B, Cella D, Hays RD, Hess R, et al. Estimation of a preference-based summary score for the patient-reported outcomes measurement information system: the PROMIS®-Preference (PROPr) scoring system. Med Decis Making 2018;38(6):683–98. doi: 10.1177/0272989X18776637. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  89. Craig BM, Reeve BB, Brown PM, Cella D, Hays RD, Lipscomb J, et al. US valuation of health outcomes measured using the PROMIS-29. Value Health 2014;17(8):846–53. doi: 10.1016/j.jval.2014.09.005. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  90. Dewitt B, Jalal H, Hanmer J. Computing PROPr utility scores for PROMIS® profile instruments. Value Health 2020;23(3):370–8. doi: 10.1016/j.jval.2019.09.2752. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  91. Fairhurst C, Roche J, Bissell L, Hewitt C, Hugill-Jones J, Howsam J, et al. A 2x2 randomised factorial SWAT of the use of a pen and small, financial incentive to improve recruitment in a randomised controlled trial of yoga for older adults with multimorbidity. F1000Res 2021;10:326. doi: 10.12688/f1000research.52164.1. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  92. Fairhurst C, Parkinson G, Hewitt C, Maturana C, Wiley L, Rose F, et al. Enclosing a pen in a postal questionnaire follow-up to increase response rate: a study within a trial. NIHR Open Res 2022;2:53. doi: 10.3310/nihropenres.13324.1. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  93. Courneya KS, Forbes CC, Trinh L, Sellar CM, Friedenreich CM, Reiman T. Patient satisfaction with participation in a randomized exercise trial: effects of randomization and a usual care posttrial exercise program. Clin Trials 2013;10(6):959–66. doi: 10.1177/1740774513495985. [DOI] [PubMed]
  94. Hertogh EM, Schuit AJ, Peeters PHM, Monninkhof EM. Noncompliance in lifestyle intervention studies: the instrumental variable method provides insight into the bias. J Clin Epidemiol 2010;63(8):900–6. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2009.10.007. [DOI] [PubMed]
  95. Bisschop CNS, Courneya KS, Velthuis MJ, Monninkhof EM, Jones LW, Friedenreich C, et al. Control group design, contamination and drop-out in exercise oncology trials: a systematic review. PLOS ONE 2015;10(3):e0120996. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0120996. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  96. Waters L, Reeves M, Fjeldsoe B, Eakin E. Control group improvements in physical activity intervention trials and possible explanatory factors: a systematic review. J Phys Act Health 2012;9(6):884–95. doi: 10.1123/jpah.9.6.884. [DOI] [PubMed]
  97. Courneya KS, Friedenreich CM, Quinney HA, Fields AL, Jones LW, Fairey AS. A randomized trial of exercise and quality of life in colorectal cancer survivors. Eur J Cancer Care (Engl) 2003;12(4):347–57. doi: 10.1046/j.1365-2354.2003.00437.x. [DOI] [PubMed]
  98. Mock V, Pickett M, Ropka ME, Muscari Lin E, Stewart KJ, Rhodes VA, et al. Fatigue and quality of life outcomes of exercise during cancer treatment. Cancer Pract 2001;9(3):119–27. doi: 10.1046/j.1523-5394.2001.009003119.x. [DOI] [PubMed]
  99. Tilbrook HE, Hewitt CE, Aplin JD, Semlyen A, Trewhela A, Watt I, Torgerson DJ. Compliance effects in a randomised controlled trial of yoga for chronic low back pain: a methodological study. Physiotherapy 2014;100(3):256–62. doi: 10.1016/j.physio.2013.10.001. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  100. Salisbury C, Man MS, Chaplin K, Mann C, Bower P, Brookes S, et al. A patient-centred intervention to improve the management of multimorbidity in general practice: the 3D RCT. Health Serv Del Res 2019;7:1–238. [PubMed]
  101. Haywood KL, Garratt AM, Fitzpatrick R. Quality of life in older people: a structured review of generic self-assessed health instruments. Qual Life Res 2005;14(7):1651–68. doi: 10.1007/s11136-005-1743-0. [DOI] [PubMed]
  102. Bhadhuri A, Kind P, Salari P, Jungo KT, Boland B, Byrne S, et al. Measurement properties of EQ-5D-3L and EQ-5D-5L in recording self-reported health status in older patients with substantial multimorbidity and polypharmacy. Health Qual Life Outcomes 2020;18(1):317. doi: 10.1186/s12955-020-01564-0. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  103. Janssen MF, Pickard AS, Golicki D, Gudex C, Niewada M, Scalone L, et al. Measurement properties of the EQ-5D-5L compared to the EQ-5D-3L across eight patient groups: a multi-country study. Qual Life Res 2013;22(7):1717–27. doi: 10.1007/s11136-012-0322-4. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  104. de Souto Barreto P, Ferrandez AM, Saliba-Serre B. Are older adults who volunteer to participate in an exercise study fitter and healthier than nonvolunteers? The participation bias of the study population. J Phys Act Health 2013;10(3):359–67. [PubMed]
  105. Thompson AJ, Turner AJ. A comparison of the EQ-5D-3L and EQ-5D-5L. PharmacoEconomics 2020;38(6):575–91. doi: 10.1007/s40273-020-00893-8. [DOI] [PubMed]
  106. Clegg A, Bates C, Young J, Ryan R, Nichols L, Ann Teale E, et al. Development and validation of an electronic frailty index using routine primary care electronic health record data. Age Ageing 2016;45(3):353–60. doi: 10.1093/ageing/afw039. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  107. Ward L, Stebbings S, Cherkin D, Baxter GD. Components and reporting of yoga interventions for musculoskeletal conditions: a systematic review of randomised controlled trials. Complement Ther Med 2014;22(5):909–19. doi: 10.1016/j.ctim.2014.08.007. [DOI] [PubMed]
  108. Elwy AR, Groessl EJ, Eisen SV, Riley KE, Maiya M, Lee JP, et al. A systematic scoping review of yoga intervention components and study quality. Am J Prev Med 2014;47(2):220–32. doi: 10.1016/j.amepre.2014.03.012. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  109. Tulloch A, Bombell H, Dean C, Tiedemann A. Yoga-based exercise improves health-related quality of life and mental well-being in older people: a systematic review of randomised controlled trials. Age Ageing 2018;47(4):537–44. doi: 10.1093/ageing/afy044. [DOI] [PubMed]
  110. Bricca A, Harris LK, Jager M, Smith SM, Juhl CB, Skou ST. Benefits and harms of exercise therapy in people with multimorbidity: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials. Ageing Res Rev 2020;63:101166. doi: 10.1016/j.arr.2020.101166. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  111. Chuang LH, Soares MO, Tilbrook H, Cox H, Hewitt CE, Aplin J, et al. A pragmatic multicentered randomized controlled trial of yoga for chronic low back pain: economic evaluation. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2012;37(18):1593–601. doi: 10.1097/BRS.0b013e3182545937. [DOI] [PubMed]
  112. Bermingham SL, Sparrow K, Mullis R, Fox M, Shearman C, Bradbury A, Michaels J. The cost-effectiveness of supervised exercise for the treatment of intermittent claudication. Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg 2013;46(6):707–14. doi: 10.1016/j.ejvs.2013.09.005. [DOI] [PubMed]
  113. Griffiths TL, Phillips CJ, Davies S, Burr ML, Campbell IA. Cost effectiveness of an outpatient multidisciplinary pulmonary rehabilitation programme. Thorax 2001;56(10):779–84. doi: 10.1136/thorax.56.10.779. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  114. Dalal HM, Taylor RS, Jolly K, Davis RC, Doherty P, Miles J, et al. The effects and costs of home-based rehabilitation for heart failure with reduced ejection fraction: the REACH-HF multicentre randomized controlled trial. Eur J Prev Cardiol 2019;26(3):262–72. doi: 10.1177/2047487318806358. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  115. Smith SM, Wallace E, Salisbury C, Sasseville M, Bayliss E, Fortin M. A Core Outcome Set for multimorbidity research (COSmm). Ann Fam Med 2018;16(2):132–8. doi: 10.1370/afm.2178. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  116. Schulz KF, Altman DG, Moher D; CONSORT Group. CONSORT 2010 statement: updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomized trials. Obstet Gynecol 2010;115(5):1063–70. doi: 10.1097/AOG.0b013e3181d9d421. [DOI] [PubMed]
  117. Moonaz S, Nault D, Cramer H, Ward L. CLARIFY 2021: explanation and elaboration of the Delphi-based guidelines for the reporting of yoga research. BMJ Open 2021;11(8):e045812. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2020-045812. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  118. Tilbrook HE, Cox H, Hewitt CE, Kang’ombe AR, Chuang LH, Jayakody S, et al. Yoga for chronic low back pain: a randomized trial. Ann Intern Med 2011;155(9):569–78. doi: 10.7326/0003-4819-155-9-201111010-00003. [DOI] [PubMed]
  119. Ware JH, Hamel MB. Pragmatic trials–guides to better patient care? N Engl J Med 2011;364(18):1685–7. doi: 10.1056/NEJMp1103502. [DOI] [PubMed]
  120. Zhu Y, Edwards D, Mant J, Payne RA, Kiddle S. Characteristics, service use and mortality of clusters of multimorbid patients in England: a population-based study. BMC Med 2020;18(1):78. doi: 10.1186/s12916-020-01543-8. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  121. Office for National Statistics. 2011 Census. 2011. URL: www.ons.gov.uk/census/2011census (accessed 22 June 2023).
  122. Raftery J, Williams HC, Clarke A, Thornton J, Norrie J, Snooks H, Stein K. ‘Not clinically effective but cost-effective’ – paradoxical conclusions in randomised controlled trials with ‘doubly null’ results: a cross-sectional study. BMJ Open 2020;10(1):e029596. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2019-029596. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  123. Foster C, Armstrong M, Hillsdon M, Skelton D, Mavroeidi A, Cavill N, et al. Muscle and Bone Strengthening and Balance Activities for General Health Benefits in Adults and Older Adults: Summary of a Rapid Evidence Review for the UK Chief Medical Officers’ Update of the Physical Activity Guidelines. London: UK Public Health England; 2018. pp. 1–31.

RESOURCES