Abstract
Background
Effective and sustainable interventions are needed to counteract the decline in physical function and sarcopenia in the growing aging population. The aim of this study was to determine the 6 and 12 month effectiveness of blended (e‐health + coaching) home‐based exercise and a dietary protein intervention on physical performance in community‐dwelling older adults.
Methods
This cluster randomized controlled trial allocated 45 clusters of older adults already engaged in a weekly community‐based exercise programme. The clusters were randomized to three groups with ratio of 16:15:14; (i) no intervention, control (CON); (ii) blended home‐based exercise intervention (HBex); and (iii) HBex with dietary protein counselling (HBex‐Pro). Both interventions used a tablet PC with app and personalized coaching and were targeting on behaviour change. The study comprised coached 6 month interventions with a 6 month follow‐up. The primary outcome physical performance was assessed by modified Physical Performance Test (m‐PPT). Secondary outcomes were gait speed, physical activity level (PAL), handgrip muscle strength, protein intake, skeletal muscle mass, health status, and executive functioning. Linear mixed models of repeated measured were used to assess intervention effects at 6 and 12 months.
Results
The population included 245 older adults (mean age 72 ± 6.5 (SD) years), 71% female, and 54% co‐morbidities observed. Dropout of the intervention was 18% at 6 months and 26% at 12 months. Participants were well functioning, based on an m‐PPT score of 33.9 (2.8) out of 36. For the primary outcome m‐PPT, no significant intervention effects (HBex, +0.03, P = 0.933; HBex‐Pro, −0.13, P = 0.730) were found. Gait speed (+0.20 m/s, P = 0.001), PAL (+0.06, P = 0.008), muscle strength (+2.32 kg, P = 0.001), protein intake (+0.32 g/kg/day, P < 0.001), and muscle mass (+0.33 kg, P = 0.017) improved significantly in the HBex‐Pro group compared with control group after 6 month intervention. The protein intake, muscle mass, and strength remained significantly improved after 12 months as compared with those of control. Health change and executive functioning improved significantly in both intervention groups after 6 months.
Conclusions
This HBex and dietary protein interventions did not change the physical performance (m‐PPT) in community‐dwelling older adults. Changes were observed in gait speed, PAL, muscle mass, strength, and dietary protein intake, in response to this combined intervention.
Keywords: Aging, Behaviour change, e‐Health, Physical functioning, Protein, Sarcopenia
Introduction
The share of the aging population will rise in the upcoming decades, 1 with advancing age older adults experiencing an increase in physical limitations. These limitations are mainly caused by sarcopenic characteristics, such as a decrease in muscle mass, muscle strength, and physical performance. 2 Subsequently, this decline in physical performance is associated with increased prevalence of chronic conditions and falls, diminished physical activity, autonomy, and quality of life. 3 , 4 , 5
Exercise training and nutritional interventions have shown to be effective strategies to counteract declines in muscle mass, muscle strength, and physical performance. 6 , 7 However, once‐weekly exercise programmes in community settings have shown to be ineffective in the preservation of physical performance. 8 Also, motivation is challenged owing to the cost, time, and effort. 9
Home‐based exercise training has been shown to improve physical performance, physical activity, balance, mobility, and strength in older adults. 10 , 11 e‐Health combined with personalized coaching, a blended approach, may result in higher motivation and adherence to home‐based exercise training. 12 Previous research showed that e‐health may be effective in improving muscle mass, physical performance, 13 and physical activity, 14 although the number of studies including home‐based exercise training with e‐health is limited. 15 , 16
To further improve the effects of exercise training on muscle mass and physical performance, adequate dietary protein intake has been suggested. 17 , 18 , 19 No well‐designed studies are available of the impact of protein counselling during home‐based exercise training programmes with additional e‐health on muscle mass and physical performance in community‐dwelling older adults.
The VITAMIN (VITal AMsterdam older adults IN the city) research group therefore developed a new intervention: a blended home‐based exercise programme, including e‐health and personalized coaching, with or without a dietary protein counselling intervention. 20 , 21 The aim of this study is to evaluate the 6 and 12 month effectiveness of this blended home‐based exercise training programme as well as the additional value of increased dietary protein on physical performance in community‐dwelling older adults.
Materials and methods
Study design
The study consisted of a cluster randomized controlled trial (RCT). Clusters of community‐dwelling older adults engaged in a weekly community‐based exercise programme were randomly allocated to three groups:
no intervention (control group: CON),
blended home‐based exercise intervention (HBex), and
HBex combined with a dietary protein counselling intervention (HBex‐Pro).
The intervention period with personalized coaching was 6 months. The intervention continued from 6 up to 12 months without the personalized coaching, resulting in a 12 month follow‐up evaluation. For assessment of the intervention effect and follow‐up effect, we collected data at screening, the post‐randomization baseline visit, 6 month effect visit (end of coaching), and 12 month follow‐up (end of study) at the Amsterdam Nutritional Assessment Center. The study was approved by the Medical Ethics Committee (METC) of the Amsterdam University Medical Centers, location VUmc, The Netherlands (protocol ID: 2016.025), and registered at The Netherlands National Trial Register https://www.trialregister.nl/trial/5472 (NTR) NL5472/NTR5888.
Participants
We recruited participants from the Amsterdam metropolitan area, The Netherlands, between March 2016 and June 2017. Older adults were recruited through local community‐based centres offering weekly exercise programmes and through a postal mailing that addressed 10 000 community‐dwelling inhabitants of the Amsterdam region. Applicants were included if they met the following criteria: (i) 55 years of age or older, (ii) willingness of the general practitioner to be notified on study participation, (iii) willingness to comply with the protocol in the opinion of the study physician, (iv) ability to understand the Dutch language, (v) absence of current alcohol or drug abuse in the opinion of the investigator, (vi) absence of cognitive impairment, indicated by a score of 15 or less on the Mini‐Mental State Examination, and (vii) absence of knee or hip surgery in the last 6 months. The protocol that details the study has been published, including detailed methods, inclusion criteria, measurement procedures, and interventions. 21
Randomization
Eligible older adults were participating in weekly community‐based exercise programmes, whereas these groups were defined as clusters to be randomized. After an informed consent was obtained of all individual participants of a cluster, this cluster was randomized by the unblinded study assistant (CvD.) according to the computer‐generated randomization lists created by a statistician without a role in the study (MS). By necessity, participants and junior professionals, those assessing the participants and those delivering the interventions, were not blind to allocation.
Interventions
Control group
Participants in the control group followed their weekly community‐based exercise programme and were asked to continue their regular lifestyle.
Blended home‐based exercise training
Participants in both intervention groups (HBex and HBex‐Pro) received in addition to their weekly exercise an HBex program. This included a tablet PC with developed app and personalized coaching. The app allowed participants to draw up a personalized weekly programme with progressive functional training exercises (type, level, duration, sets, and complexity). Further details are presented elsewhere, 20 , 21 , 22 and an overview of the functional training programme is available at Data S1 . A junior exercise coach was assigned to each participant, who received extensive training in the topics of functional training and coaching. During face‐to‐face visits or tablet‐supported video calls, the coaching included techniques related to self‐regulation and competence. The coaching was operationalized according to the coach manual. The coaching period comprised weekly contact in the first 2 months, fortnightly in the next 2 months, and once a month in the final 2 months.
Dietary protein counselling
Participants in the HBex‐Pro group received personalized dietary counselling to optimize their protein intake. This counselling was conducted by junior dietitians and focused on increasing protein intakes to a minimum of 1.2 g/kg/day and optimum of 1.5 g/kg/day, 17 timing (breakfast, lunch, dinner, and snacks), and source of protein (high‐quality protein sources, such as dairy protein). Moreover, the coaching was operationalized in accordance with the exercise coach, included similar coach techniques (e.g. motivational interviewing), and was operationalized according the coach manual. A coaching schedule is available at Data S2 .
Outcomes
Baseline demographic information was collected; medical history and current status on diagnoses, disabilities, treatments, and medications were reported.
Physical functioning
The primary outcome is measured with the modified Physical Performance Test (m‐PPT). The m‐PPT was performed as an assessment of multiple dimensions of physical functioning [basic and complex activities of daily living (ADL)] and consists of nine items 23 : (i) progressive Romberg test (0–4 points); (ii) chair rise (0–4 points); (iii) book lift (0–4 points); (iv) put on and take off a coat (0–4 points); (v) pick up a coin (0–4 points); (vi) 15.2 m walk (0–4 points); (vii) turn 360° (0–4 points); (viii) one flight of stairs (0–4 points); and (ix) four flights of stairs (0–4 points). All items of the test compose a maximum score of 36 points. The m‐PPT and upcoming physical functioning tests have proven clinometric qualities in research for older adults. 24 , 25 , 26
The secondary outcomes were the short physical performance battery (SPPB), timed‐up‐and‐go test (TUG), 6 min walk test (6MWT), physical activity level (PAL), and handgrip muscle strength (HGS). The SPPB and TUG are commonly used to assess lower extremity functioning in a frail elderly population, and the 6MWT is also valid to assess performance‐based endurance in healthy older adults. 24 As physical functioning includes physical activity, PAL was estimated with a 3 day self‐report record. 27 HGS was assessed with a hand dynamometer (Jamar, USA) and used as parameter of muscle functioning. 24 Every hand was alternately assessed three times; for analysis, the average of the dominant hand was used.
Nutrition and body composition
Dietary protein and energy intake was derived from a 3 day food record, 28 with use of NEVO‐codes version 2013. Skeletal muscle mass (SMM) was assessed with a whole‐body dual‐energy X‐ray absorptiometry scan (DXA, Hologic Discovery, The Netherlands) in order to predict SMM in arms and legs. Two trained assessors (C v D. and J S) analysed the scans with the Hologic software package, and a third independent lab coordinator reviewed the analysing procedures.
Health status
Health‐related quality of life was measured with the RAND‐36 questionnaire. The Dutch translation of the 36‐Item Short‐Form Health Survey (SF‐36v2) was used. 29 Health‐related and self‐reported summary component scores physical and social functioning were derived, accompanied with the seven subsequent component scores. Besides, the 30‐item geriatric depression scale (GDS) was used to identify depression in older adults. 30
Executive functioning
Changes in executive functioning were measured with the trail‐making test (TMT), the Stroop Color–Word test (SCW), and the letter‐fluency test (LF). 31
Adherence rates
Self‐reported average adherence per week was computed for Weeks 1 to 26 for the following outcomes: the number of exercises and the number of days of exercise per week. Participants were defined as adherent to the exercise guidelines when the exercise programme was used ≥2 days per week. Participants were defined as adherent to the dietary counselling if they reported average ingestion of at least 80% of the recommended protein intake of 1.5 g/kg/day, derived from the self‐reported 3 day food record after 6 months. 21
Data collection and statistical analysis
The sample size was based on the primary outcome. To detect a statistically significant difference in m‐PPT after 6 months between the groups with an 80% statistical power and a significance level of 0.05, a sample size of 56 for each of three arms was estimated. Assuming a 40% dropout, a total number of 80 participants per group was indicated, resulting in 240 participants in the study. 21 , 26
We used an intention‐to‐treat analytic strategy, including all participants who were able to visit the study location. For primary analyses, we used a linear mixed model (LMM) of repeated measures with a three‐level structure in order to adjust for the extra level of cluster and account for missing values in a clinical trial setting. Time and time * group interaction were defined as fixed factors; subject and cluster were included as random intercepts; and if indicated, time was added as random slope. 32 Changes in m‐PPT and secondary outcomes were visualized over the entire time course using the estimated marginal means. Intervention effects were reported as difference with 95% confidence interval and P‐values. Additional per‐protocol analysis included the exercise adherend participants only. Detailed analyses were stated in the Statistical Analysis Plan, which was finalized before unblinding of the study. Statistical analyses were performed using SPSS Statistics v24.0 (IBM, USA) and the LMM with STATA/SE v13.0 (StataCorp LLC, USA). An α of 0.05 was used to determine statistical significance.
Results
In total, 95% of the screened community‐dwelling older adults were eligible and were randomized. This resulted in 45 (median [inter‐quartile range], 4 [3–7]; ratio 16:15:14) randomized clusters with a total of 245 participants. Most exclusions were due to co‐morbidities and related disability to comply to the protocol. During the intervention period of 6 months, the total dropout was 18%: 11% (n = 10) for CON, 14% (n = 9) for HBex, and 31% (n = 21) for HBex‐Pro. Part of the total dropout was medical dropout (CON, n = 5; HBex, n = 1; and HBex‐Pro, n = 6). Five serious adverse events (SAEs) were reported during the intervention period and two SAEs during the follow‐up, but without relation to the study. In total, 224 older adults completed the baseline visit, 184 older adults completed the 6 month effect visit (CON, n = 81; HBex, n = 56; and HBex‐Pro, n = 47), and 166 older adults completed the 12 month follow‐up visit (CON, n = 77; HBex, n = 46; and HBex‐Pro, n = 43) (Figure 1).
Figure 1.
CONSORT flow diagram of VITAMIN study clusters and participants. CON, no intervention, control; HBex, blended home‐based exercise intervention; HBex‐Pro, HBex with dietary protein counselling; IQR, inter‐quartile range.
Clinical characteristics
Clusters were randomized over three groups before baseline (Table 1). At baseline, participants had a mean (SD) age of 72.0 (6.5) years and a body mass index of 26.0 (4.2), and 71% were female. Overall, the participants were well functioning, based on an m‐PPT score of 33.9 (2.8) out of a maximum of 36. Most common medical conditions were musculoskeletal disorders (58%) and cardiovascular diseases (54%). Co‐morbidity of two or more medical conditions was observed in 54%. Six per cent of the population was characterized as probable sarcopenic and 1% as confirmed sarcopenic. 2
Table 1.
Baseline characteristics of the participants
| Characteristics a | Total (n = 224) | CON (n = 91) | HBex (n = 65) | HBex‐Pro (n = 68) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Age, years | 72.0 (6.5) | 72.8 (6.5) | 72.3 (5.8) | 70.8 (6.8) | |
| Female sex, n (%) | 158 (71) | 66 (73) | 43 (72) | 49 (72) | |
| Level of education, b n (%) | Low education | 99 (44) | 41 (45) | 28 (43) | 30 (44) |
| Ethnicity, n (%) | Caucasian | 213 (96) | 88 (97) | 61 (94) | 64 (94) |
| MMSE, score | 28.3 (2.0) | 28.3 (1.7) | 28.6 (1.7) | 27.9 (2.6) | |
| Sarcopenia, c n (%) | No sarcopenia | 208 (93) | 86 (94) | 61 (94) | 61 (90) |
| Probable | 14 (6) | 4 (4) | 4 (6) | 6 (9) | |
| Confirmed | 2 (1) | 1 (1) | 0 (0) | 1 (2) | |
| Frailty score, d n (%) | Non‐frail | 194 (87) | 78 (86) | 60 (92) | 56 (82) |
| Mildly frail | 27 (12) | 13 (14) | 3 (5) | 11 (16) | |
| Moderately frail/frail | 3 (1) | 0 (0) | 2 (3) | 1 (1) | |
| Medical conditions, e n (%) | Musculoskeletal | 130 (58) | 53 (58) | 40 (61) | 37 (54) |
| Arthrosis | 52 (23) | 19 (21) | 15 (23) | 18 (27) | |
| Cardiovascular | 120 (54) | 52 (57) | 34 (52) | 34 (50) | |
| Orthopaedic implants | 28 (13) | 8 (9) | 13 (20) | 7 (10) | |
| Respiratory | 22 (10) | 6 (6) | 9 (14) | 7 (10) | |
| Diabetes type II | 14 (6) | 3 (3) | 6 (9) | 5 (7) | |
| Co‐morbidity (≥2 diseases) | 121 (54) | 50 (55) | 36 (55) | 36 (53) | |
| Physical functioning | |||||
| m‐PPT, score | 33.9 (2.8) | 34.0 (2.5) | 33.9 (3.1) | 33.9 (2.8) | |
| TUG, s | 7.45 (2.0) | 7.43 (1.6) | 7.34 (2.6) | 7.59 (1.8) | |
| SPPB, score | 11.29 (1.2) | 11.26 (1.3) | 11.42 (1.1) | 11.19 (1.2) | |
| 6MWT, m | 508 (91) | 517 (90) | 511 (93) | 490 (91) | |
| Physical activity level, PAL (avMETs/day) | 1.50 (0.15) | 1.52 (0.15) | 1.50 (0.15) | 1.48 (0.13) | |
| HGS, kg | 29.5 (10.8) | 30.0 (11.8) | 30.0 (9.3) | 28.3 (10.9) | |
| Nutrition and body composition | |||||
| BMI, kg/m2 | 26.0 (4.2) | 25.7 (3.7) | 25.3 (3.8) | 27.0 (5.0) | |
| BMI cat | Underweight | 2 (1) | 1 (1) | 1 (2) | 0 (0) |
| Normal weight | 104 (46) | 40 (44) | 35 (54) | 29 (43) | |
| Overweight | 86 (38) | 41 (45) | 22 (34) | 23 (34) | |
| Obese | 32 (14) | 9 (10) | 7 (11) | 16 (24) | |
| Skeletal muscle mass, SMM, kg | 20.8 (4.7) | 20.6 (4.5) | 21.0 (5.3) | 20.8 (4.2) | |
| Fat mass, % | 32.2 (6.5) | 32.0 (6.3) | 31.1 (6.2) | 33.6 (6.9) | |
| Energy intake, kcal/day | 1880 (472) | 1897 (451) | 1817 (433) | 1918 (533) | |
| Protein intake, g/kg/day | 1.08 (0.29) | 1.09 (0.26) | 1.06 (0.30) | 1.07 (0.31) | |
| Health status | |||||
| RAND‐36 health survey scores | Physical functioning | 83.8 (17.4) | 83.3 (17.3) | 85.5 (18.2) | 82.8 (16.9) |
| Social functioning | 88.0 (17.0) | 88.6 (17.3) | 89.2 (16.2) | 86.0 (17.5) | |
| Role of disability (PP) | 78.0 (23.3) | 78.0 (23.8) | 80.7 (23.2) | 75.5 (22.9) | |
| Role of disability (EP) | 85.2 (18.7) | 88.2 (16.8) | 84.4 (19.0) | 82.2 (20.5) | |
| Mental functioning | 79.9 (13.7) | 82.0 (14.4) | 80.2 (13.8) | 76.8 (12.2) | |
| Vitality | 71.4 (15.0) | 72.9 (16.1) | 71.6 (13.6) | 69.0 (14.9) | |
| Pain | 80.5 (19.4) | 80.7 (20.7) | 82.6 (17.1) | 78.1 (19.8) | |
| Perceived health | 69.6 (15.6) | 71.3 (15.3) | 69.9 (14.9) | 67.1 (16.7) | |
| Health change | 54.0 (18.6) | 53.3 (19.5) | 55.1 (19.0) | 53.8 (17.1) | |
| GDS, score | 3.1 (3.4) | 2.5 (2.7) | 3.0 (3.6) | 4.0 (3.8) | |
| Executive functioning | |||||
| Trail‐making test | Part A, s | 34.4 (13.1) | 35.0 (11.9) | 34.2 (13.6) | 33.6 (14.4) |
| Part B, s | 74.9 (35.5) | 74.2 (30.0) | 70.0 (25.8) | 80.4 (47.8) | |
| Stroop Color–Word test | Part I, s | 50.8 (9.0) | 50.1 (7.6) | 49.6 (6.9) | 52.9 (11.8) |
| Part II, s | 62.9 (12.5) | 61.7 (11.1) | 62.3 (11.4) | 65.0 (14.9) | |
| Part III, s | 105.2 (32.2) | 103.9 (30.8) | 102.9 (24.6) | 109.2 (39.6) | |
| Stroop interference score, s | 48.4 (25.9) | 48.0 (26.0) | 47.0 (20.5) | 50.3 (30.2) | |
| Letter‐fluency test, number of words | 41.5 (13.6) | 43.1 (12.4) | 41.1 (12.9) | 39.5 (15.8) | |
6MWT, 6 min walk test; avMETs/day, average metabolic equivalent of tasks per day; BMI, body mass index; EP, emotional problem; GDS, geriatric depression scale; HGS, hand grip muscle strength; MMSE, Mini‐Mental State Examination; m‐PPT, modified Physical Performance Test; PAL, physical activity level; PP, physical problem; RAND‐36, the RAND‐36 item health survey; SMM, skeletal muscle mass, sum of lean mass of the four limbs by DXA; SPPB, short physical performance battery; TUG, timed‐up‐and‐go test.
Unless otherwise noted, the observed characteristics are reported with mean (SD) for the total population and per group.
Low education defined as community college or less educated (primary and secondary education).
Sarcopenia score derived from Cruz‐Jentoft et al. 2 ; based on HGS, SMM/height2, and gait speed.
Frailty score derived from m‐PPT score.
Disease categories based on 10th revision of the International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems (ICD‐10).
Effectiveness
Physical functioning
No significant intervention effects were found for the m‐PPT (HBex, +0.03; P = 0.933; HBex‐Pro, −0.13; P = 0.730) or follow‐up effects. Similar absence of significant effects was found for the secondary physical performance outcomes SPPB, 6MWT, and TUG. However, significant intervention effects were observed for gait speed (+0.20; P = 0.001) as well as PAL (+0.06; P = 0.008) in HBex‐Pro at 6 months compared with CON. These two effects were not sustained at 12 month follow‐up (Table 2 and Figure 2A–C). Also, for HGS, a significant 6 and 12 month effect was found for HBex‐Pro (+2.32; P = 0.001|+1.52; P = 0.032) (Table 2 and Figure 2D).
Table 2.
Effects of home‐based exercise and protein on outcome in older adults
| Outcome variable a | Randomized groups | Mixed models with interaction effects * | ||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CON | HBex | HBex‐Pro | Exercise effects (HBex vs. CON) | Exercise + protein effects (HBex‐Pro vs. CON) | ||||||||
| n | Mean (SE) | n | Mean (SE) | n | Mean (SE) | Difference (95% CI) | P‐value | Difference (95% CI) | P‐value | |||
| Physical functioning | ||||||||||||
| m‐PPT b (score) | 0 m | 91 | 34.0 (0.2) | 65 | 33.9 (0.3) | 68 | 33.9 (0.3) | |||||
| 6 m | 81 | 33.9 (0.3) | 56 | 33.8 (0.3) | 47 | 33.7 (0.3) | Intervention effect | +0.03 (−0.69; 0.75) | 0.933 | −0.13 (−0.89; 0.62) | 0.730 | |
| 12 m | 77 | 34.2 (0.3) | 46 | 33.7 (0.4) | 43 | 33.7 (0.3) | Follow‐up effect | −0.38 (−1.24; 0.49) | 0.396 | −0.41 (−1.30; 0.48) | 0.362 | |
| SPPB (score) | 0 m | 91 | 11.3 (0.1) | 65 | 11.4 (0.1) | 68 | 11.2 (0.1) | |||||
| 6 m | 81 | 11.3 (0.1) | 56 | 11.4 (0.1) | 47 | 11.2 (0.1) | Intervention effect | −0.06 (−0.33; 0.22) | 0.691 | −0.02 (−0.30; 0.27) | 0.918 | |
| 12 m | 77 | 11.3 (0.1) | 46 | 11.2 (0.1) | 43 | 11.2 (0.1) | Follow‐up effect | −0.21 (−0.50; 0.08) | 0.156 | −0.02 (−0.31; 0.28) | 0.914 | |
| TUG (s) | 0 m | 91 | 7.4 (0.2) | 64 | 7.3 (0.3) | 68 | 7.6 (0.2) | |||||
| 6 m | 81 | 7.8 (0.2) | 55 | 7.8 (0.3) | 46 | 7.9 (0.2) | Intervention effect | +0.07 (−0.21; 0.34) | 0.648 | −0.08 (−0.37; 0.21) | 0.592 | |
| 12 m | 77 | 7.4 (0.2) | 46 | 7.5 (0.3) | 42 | 7.7 (0.2) | Follow‐up effect | +0.16 (−0.14; 0.45) | 0.290 | +0.18 (−0.12; 0.48) | 0.245 | |
| 6MWT (m) | 0 m | 91 | 516 (9) | 65 | 512 (10) | 67 | 490 (11) | |||||
| 6 m | 81 | 531 (9) | 55 | 529 (10) | 47 | 516 (11) | Intervention effect | +2.21 (−11.7; 16.1) | 0.756 | +10.8 (−3.9; 25.4) | 0.149 | |
| 12 m | 77 | 528 (9) | 45 | 528 (10) | 41 | 516 (11) | Follow‐up effect | +3.16 (−11.5; 17.9) | 0.673 | +12.7 (−2.5; 28.0) | 0.102 | |
| Gait speed (m/s) | 0 m | 91 | 1.36 (0.0) | 65 | 1.34 (0.0) | 68 | 1.27 (0.0) | |||||
| 6 m | 81 | 1.16 (0.0) | 55 | 1.22 (0.0) | 47 | 1.27 (0.0) | Intervention effect | +0.08 (−0.03; 0.19) | 0.163 | +0.20 (0.09; 0.32) | 0.001 | |
| 12 m | 77 | 1.21 (0.0) | 45 | 1.21 (0.0) | 43 | 1.18 (0.0) | Follow‐up effect | +0.02 (−0.10; 0.14) | 0.759 | +0.06 (−0.05; 0.18) | 0.280 | |
| PAL (avMETs/day) | 0 m | 86 | 1.51 (0.0) | 65 | 1.50 (0.0) | 66 | 1.49 (0.0) | |||||
| 6 m | 80 | 1.49 (0.0) | 55 | 1.50 (0.0) | 43 | 1.53 (0.0) | Intervention effect | +0.02 (−0.02; 0.06) | 0.290 | +0.06 (0.02; 0.11) | 0.008 | |
| 12 m | 77 | 1.52 (0.0) | 46 | 1.52 (0.0) | 40 | 1.48 (0.0) | Follow‐up effect | +0.01 (−0.03; 0.05) | 0.683 | −0.01 (−0.06; 0.03) | 0.608 | |
| HGS‐av (kg) | 0 m | 91 | 29.9 (1.2) | 65 | 30.0 (1.1) | 68 | 28.4 (1.2) | |||||
| 6 m | 81 | 29.5 (1.2) | 56 | 29.5 (1.1) | 47 | 30.3 (1.2) | Intervention effect | −0.08 (−1.37; 1.20) | 0.898 | +2.32 (0.97; 3.67) | 0.001 | |
| 12 m | 77 | 30.0 (1.2) | 48 | 29.5 (1.1) | 43 | 30.0 (1.2) | Follow‐up effect | −0.52 (−1.86; 0.82) | 0.448 | +1.52 (0.13; 2.91) | 0.032 | |
| Nutrition and body composition | ||||||||||||
| Protein intake c (g/kg/day) | 0 m | 84 | 1.09 (0.0) | 63 | 1.08 (0.0) | 65 | 1.07 (0.0) | |||||
| 6 m | 81 | 1.13 (0.0) | 55 | 1.11 (0.0) | 45 | 1.41 (0.0) | Intervention effect | −0.01 (−0.09; 0.08) | 0.866 | +0.32 (0.23; 0.42) | <0.001 | |
| 12 m | 77 | 1.05 (0.0) | 48 | 1.07 (0.0) | 42 | 1.24 (0.0) | Follow‐up effect | +0.03 (−0.06; 0.12) | 0.504 | +0.23 (0.13; 0.32) | <0.001 | |
| SMM (kg) | 0 m | 89 | 20.6 (0.5) | 65 | 21.0 (0.7) | 67 | 20.8 (0.5) | |||||
| 6 m | 80 | 20.3 (0.5) | 56 | 20.8 (0.7) | 46 | 20.8 (0.5) | Intervention effect | +0.19 (−0.07; 0.44) | 0.154 | +0.33 (0.06; 0.60) | 0.017 | |
| 12 m | 77 | 20.1 (0.5) | 47 | 20.7 (0.7) | 42 | 20.8 (0.5) | Follow‐up effect | +0.19 (−0.08; 0.45) | 0.170 | +0.51 (0.23; 0.79) | <0.001 | |
| Health status | ||||||||||||
| RAND‐36 PF b | 0 m | 91 | 83.4 (1.6) | 65 | 85.5 (1.7) | 68 | 82.8 (1.7) | |||||
| 6 m | 79 | 83.2 (1.6) | 55 | 86.5 (1.7) | 47 | 85.2 (1.8) | Intervention effect | +1.22 (−2.63; 5.06) | 0.536 | +2.54 (−1.49; 6.57) | 0.216 | |
| 12 m | 77 | 84.1 (1.7) | 48 | 85.5 (1.7) | 43 | 82.7 (1.9) | Follow‐up effect | −0.69 (−5.32; 3.94) | 0.770 | −0.75 (−5.55; 4.05) | 0.760 | |
| RAND‐36 SF | 0 m | 91 | 88.2 (1.0) | 65 | 88.9 (0.9) | 67 | 86.7 (1.1) | |||||
| 6 m | 79 | 88.5 (1.0) | 55 | 88.9 (0.9) | 47 | 89.2 (1.1) | Intervention effect | −0.25 (−5.59; 5.09) | 0.926 | +2.27 (−3.34; 7.87) | 0.428 | |
| 12 m | 77 | 87.4 (1.0) | 48 | 86.8 (0.9) | 43 | 85.6 (1.1) | Follow‐up effect | −1.27 (−6.83; 4.28) | 0.653 | −0.24 (−6.00; 5.52) | 0.935 | |
| RAND‐36 | 0 m | 91 | 77.7 (1.7) | 65 | 80.3 (1.9) | 68 | 76.2 (1.8) | |||||
| Fprob c | 6 m | 79 | 77.5 (1.7) | 55 | 76.6 (1.9) | 47 | 76.7 (1.8) | Intervention effect | −3.45 (−9.91; 3.00) | 0.294 | +0.72 (−6.03; 7.48) | 0.834 |
| 12 m | 77 | 75.9 (1.7) | 48 | 77.7 (1.9) | 43 | 76.4 (1.8) | Follow‐up effect | −0.67 (−7.39; 6.04) | 0.844 | +2.01 (−5.00; 8.99) | 0.574 | |
| RAND‐36 | 0 m | 88 | 86.9 (1.2) | 65 | 85.2 (1.4) | 67 | 83.2 (1.4) | |||||
| Eprob c | 6 m | 79 | 84.0 (1.2) | 55 | 83.2 (1.4) | 47 | 83.4 (1.4) | Intervention effect | +0.86 (−4.81; 6.53) | 0.766 | +3.12 (−2.85; 9.08) | 0.306 |
| 12 m | 77 | 84.2 (1.2) | 48 | 85.7 (1.4) | 43 | 81.4 (1.4) | Follow‐up effect | +3.21 (−2.70; 9.12) | 0.287 | +0.89 (−5.24; 7.03) | 0.775 | |
| RAND‐36 | 0 m | 91 | 81.4 (1.1) | 65 | 80.3 (1.1) | 67 | 77.5 (1.0) | |||||
| Mental c | 6 m | 79 | 82.2 (1.1) | 55 | 79.5 (1.1) | 47 | 76.5 (1.0) | Intervention effect | −1.61 (−5.25; 2.02) | 0.384 | −1.85 (−5.68; 1.97) | 0.342 |
| 12 m | 76 | 83.5 (1.1) | 48 | 81.5 (1.1) | 43 | 76.8 (1.0) | Follow‐up effect | −0.89 (−4.67; 2.90) | 0.646 | −2.78 (−6.71; 1.16) | 0.166 | |
| RAND‐36 | 0 m | 91 | 80.6 (1.2) | 65 | 81.9 (1.3) | 67 | 78.9 (1.3) | |||||
| Pain c | 6 m | 79 | 82.6 (1.2) | 55 | 82.1 (1.3) | 47 | 82.4 (1.3) | Intervention effect | −1.66 (−7.56; 4.24) | 0.581 | 1.60 (−4.62; 7.81) | 0.615 |
| 12 m | 77 | 81.4 (1.2) | 48 | 80.1 (1.3) | 43 | 79.3 (1.3) | Follow‐up effect | −2.61 (−8.76; 3.55) | 0.406 | −0.42 (−6.81; 5.97) | 0.898 | |
| RAND‐36 | 0 m | 91 | 72.5 (1.3) | 65 | 71.8 (1.3) | 67 | 69.2 (1.2) | |||||
| Vitality c | 6 m | 79 | 74.5 (1.3) | 55 | 72.6 (1.3) | 47 | 69.5 (1.2) | Intervention effect | −1.25 (−5.23; 2.72) | 0.537 | −1.75 (−5.93; 2.43) | 0.411 |
| 12 m | 76 | 73.8 (1.3) | 48 | 71.8 (1.3) | 43 | 67.8 (1.2) | Follow‐up effect | −1.43 (−5.57; 2.70) | 0.508 | −2.77 (−7.07; 1.53) | 0.207 | |
| RAND‐36 | 0 m | 91 | 70.7 (1.2) | 65 | 70.1 (1.2) | 67 | 67.6 (1.5) | |||||
| Health c | 6 m | 79 | 71.2 (1.2) | 55 | 69.0 (1.2) | 47 | 69.5 (1.5) | Intervention effect | −1.65 (−5.66; 2.36) | 0.420 | +1.33 (−2.90; 5.55) | 0.538 |
| 12 m | 76 | 68.9 (1.2) | 48 | 71.0 (1.2) | 42 | 67.4 (1.5) | Follow‐up effect | +2.58 (−1.60; 6.77) | 0.226 | +1.52 (−2.86; 5.89) | 0.497 | |
| RAND‐36 | 0 m | 90 | 53.4 (1.2) | 64 | 54.7 (1.3) | 66 | 54.0 (1.4) | |||||
| Health change b | 6 m | 79 | 49.5 (1.0) | 55 | 55.3 (1.0) | 47 | 57.2 (1.3) | Intervention effect | +4.73 (−0.32; 9.78) | 0.066 | +6.93 (1.62; 12.2) | 0.011 |
| 12 m | 77 | 48.6 (1.0) | 48 | 53.1 (1.3) | 43 | 51.4 (1.3) | Follow‐up effect | +3.57 (−2.91; 10.0) | 0.280 | +1.83 (−4.90; 8.55) | 0.594 | |
| GDS (score) | 0 m | 85 | 2.8 (0.3) | 63 | 3.0 (0.4) | 65 | 3.9 (0.4) | |||||
| 6 m | 81 | 2.8 (0.3) | 56 | 2.9 (0.4) | 43 | 3.6 (0.4) | Intervention effect | −0.08 (−0.79; 0.62) | 0.816 | −0.29 (−1.04; 0.47) | 0.459 | |
| 12 m | 74 | 2.7 (0.3) | 47 | 2.5 (0.4) | 42 | 4.5 (0.4) | Follow‐up effect | −0.40 (−1.15; 0.33) | 0.278 | +0.71 (−0.06; 1.48) | 0.071 | |
| Executive functioning | ||||||||||||
| TMT Part A b (s) | 0 m | 91 | 34.9 (0.9) | 65 | 34.1 (1.2) | 68 | 33.8 (1.4) | |||||
| 6 m | 81 | 34.2 (0.9) | 56 | 31.1 (1.2) | 47 | 31.6 (1.2) | Intervention effect | −2.37 (−5.48; 0.73) | 0.134 | −1.63 (−4.91; 1.65) | 0.330 | |
| 12 m | 77 | 31.9 (0.9) | 47 | 31.5 (1.1) | 43 | 29.6 (1.1) | Follow‐up effect | +0.33 (−3.33; 4.00) | 0.858 | −1.37 (−5.14; 2.41) | 0.478 | |
| TMT Part B b (s) | 0 m | 90 | 74.4 (2.7) | 64 | 71.2 (2.7) | 68 | 79.4 (4.9) | |||||
| 6 m | 78 | 71.6 (2.5) | 56 | 67.2 (2.4) | 47 | 73.4 (4.4) | Intervention effect | −1.43 (−8.45; 5.59) | 0.690 | −2.80 (−10.2; 4.58) | 0.457 | |
| 12 m | 76 | 70.4 (2.2) | 47 | 62.3 (2.3) | 42 | 72.6 (4.0) | Follow‐up effect | −5.26 (−12.4; 1.87) | 0.148 | −1.85 (−9.23; 5.53) | 0.623 | |
| SCW Part I (s) | 0 m | 91 | 50.2 (0.8) | 64 | 49.7 (0.7) | 68 | 52.7 (1.2) | |||||
| 6 m | 81 | 50.9 (0.8) | 55 | 48.4 (0.7) | 47 | 50.6 (1.2) | Intervention effect | −2.06 (−3.66; −0.46) | 0.012 | −2.85 (−4.53; −1.17) | 0.001 | |
| 12 m | 76 | 50.6 (0.9) | 47 | 47.8 (0.7) | 43 | 50.0 (1.2) | Follow‐up effect | −2.34 (−4.02; −0.66) | 0.006 | −3.15 (−4.89; −1.42) | <0.001 | |
| SCW Part II (s) | 0 m | 91 | 61.8 (1.1) | 64 | 62.2 (1.2) | 68 | 64.9 (1.7) | |||||
| 6 m | 81 | 61.9 (1.1) | 55 | 60.0 (1.2) | 47 | 63.3 (1.7) | Intervention effect | −2.38 (−4.20; −0.57) | 0.010 | −1.66 (−3.56; 0.24) | 0.087 | |
| 12 m | 77 | 60.7 (1.1) | 47 | 59.5 (1.2) | 43 | 62.9 (1.7) | Follow‐up effect | −1.64 (−3.54; 0.26) | 0.091 | −0.84 (−2.80; 1.12) | 0.399 | |
| SCW Part III (s) | 0 m | 91 | 104 (2.7) | 64 | 103 (2.8) | 68 | 109 (3.9) | |||||
| 6 m | 81 | 101 (2.7) | 55 | 98.2 (2.8) | 47 | 100 (3.9) | Intervention effect | −1.47 (−6.34; 3.40) | 0.555 | −5.21 (−10.3; −0.10) | 0.046 | |
| 12 m | 77 | 102 (2.7) | 47 | 97.4 (2.8) | 43 | 102 (3.9) | Follow‐up effect | −3.71 (−8.81; 1.38) | 0.153 | −5.51 (−10.8; −0.25) | 0.040 | |
| SIS b (score) | 0 m | 91 | 48.0 (2.3) | 64 | 47.1 (2.1) | 68 | 50.0 (3.0) | |||||
| 6 m | 81 | 44.4 (2.1) | 55 | 43.9 (2.1) | 47 | 43.0 (2.4) | Intervention effect | +0.02 (−6.13; 6.16) | 0.996 | −3.71 (−10.1; 2.69) | 0.256 | |
| 12 m | 76 | 45.8 (2.2) | 47 | 43.7 (2.3) | 43 | 44.4 (2.1) | Follow‐up effect | −1.74 (−12.3; 8.80) | 0.746 | −3.71 (−14.6; 7.20) | 0.505 | |
| Letter‐fluency test (number) | 0 m | 91 | 42.9 (1.0) | 65 | 41.3 (1.3) | 68 | 39.6 (1.7) | |||||
| 6 m | 81 | 42.9 (1.0) | 56 | 43.3 (1.3) | 47 | 42.2 (1.7) | Intervention effect | +1.96 (−0.66; 4.58) | 0.143 | +2.64 (−0.12; 5.40) | 0.061 | |
| 12 m | 77 | 44.5 (1.0) | 47 | 45.3 (1.3) | 43 | 44.0 (1.7) | Follow‐up effect | +2.37 (−0.39; 5.12) | 0.092 | +2.84 (−0.00; 5.69) | 0.050 | |
6MWT, 6 min walk test; BMI, body mass index; GDS, geriatric depression scale; HGS, hand grip muscle strength; m‐PPT, modified Physical Performance Test; PAL, physical activity level; RAND‐36 PF, RAND‐36 health survey physical functioning score; RAND‐36 SF, RAND‐36 health survey social functioning score; SCW, Stroop Color–Word test; SIS, Stroop interference score; SMM, skeletal muscle mass; SPPB, short performance battery; TMT, trail‐making test; TUG, timed‐up‐and‐go test.
Unless otherwise noted, the observed data are reported as estimated marginal means (SE) values including the random effects within the model.
Time was added as random slope, three‐level model, covariance exchangeable or unstructured.
Covariate BMI was added.
P‐values for the comparison among the groups from baseline to 6 and 12 months were calculated with the use of mixed‐model analysis of repeated measures and are reported when the overall P‐value was <0.05 for the interaction over time. Fixed factors included time and time * group interaction. Random intercepts included subject and cluster. Unless otherwise noted, covariates Age, BMI, Mini‐Mental State Examination (MMSE), and Sex were added.
Figure 2.
Outcomes on physical functioning and nutritional status. (A) Modified Physical Performance Test (m‐PPT). (B) Gait speed. * HBex‐Pro vs. CON P = 0.001. (C) Physical Activity Level. * HBex‐Pro vs. CON P = 0.008. (D) Handgrip muscle strength. * HBex‐Pro vs. CON P = 0.001. ** HBex‐Pro vs. CON P = 0.032. (E) Protein intake. * HBex‐Pro vs. CON P < 0.001. ** HBex‐Pro vs. CON P < 0.001. (F) Skeletal muscle mass. * HBex‐Pro vs. CON P = 0.017. ** HBex‐Pro vs. CON P < 0.001. (A–F) Outcomes on physical functioning and nutritional status were assessed and reported as estimated marginal means with indicated standard error bars. The P‐values, derived from the linear mixed models between intervention groups and CON, are also shown. The months represent the time points (0, 6, and 12 months) at which the measurements were assessed. CON, no intervention, control; HBex, blended home‐based exercise intervention; HBex‐Pro, HBex with dietary protein counselling.
Nutrition and body composition
Table 2 and Figure 2E show that the HBex‐Pro group was able to significantly increase their daily protein intake with regular food products than the other two groups. The mean intake increased in 6 months from 1.05 (0.0) to 1.41 (0.0) g/kg/day and was partly sustained at 1.24 (0.0) g/kg/day at 12 months. This resulted in a significant 6 and 12 month effect on protein intake in HBex‐Pro (+0.32; P < 0.001|+0.23; P < 0.001). The SMM decreased over time in CON (Δ − 0.3 kg), decreased to less extent in HBex (Δ − 0.2 kg), and was preserved in HBex‐Pro (Δ 0.0 kg) at 6 months (Table 2 and Figure 2F). A significant 6 and 12 month effect on SMM was observed for HBex‐Pro (+0.33; P = 0.017|+0.51; P < 0.001).
Health status
There were no significant intervention effects for the RAND‐36 physical and social functioning scores. However, there was a relevant significant increased health change score at 6 months for HBex‐Pro (+6.93; P = 0.011) and a trend for an increased health change score for HBex (+4.73; P = 0.066). There were no significant effects reported for GDS (Table 2).
Executive functioning
No significant intervention effects were found for the TMT Part A and Part B. Intervention effects were observed for SCW. Part I revealed intervention effects for HBex (−2.06; P = 0.012) and HBex‐Pro (−2.85; P = 0.001) with both an additional follow‐up effect. Part II also revealed an intervention effect for HBex (−2.38; P = 0.010), a trend for HBex‐Pro (−1.66; P = 0.087), and a trend for follow‐up effect for HBex (−1.64; P = 0.091). The most demanding Part III showed, furthermore, a significant intervention effect and follow‐up effect for HBex‐Pro (−5.21; P = 0.046|−5.51; P = 0.040), and letter fluency resulted in trends for both intervention groups (Table 2).
Adherence to the interventions
Table S1 shows no significant differences between the groups for accomplished weeks of coached intervention. The average days of exercise and the average number of exercises per week were significantly higher in HBex compared with HBex‐Pro [3.31 (1.6) vs. 2.47 (1.8); P = 0.006|16.03 (12.8) vs. 9.23 (8.7); P = 0.001]. The adherence of the exercise protocol (≥2 days/week) was accomplished by 75% in HBex compared with 49% in HBex‐Pro. Subsequent per‐protocol analysis for adherend participants showed similar results to intention‐to‐treat analysis and participant characteristics (Information Tables S2 and S3). App results during the intervention period are presented in Figure S1.
The a priori dietary protein intake target of a minimum of 1.2 g/kg/day was achieved by 69% in HBex‐Pro, 35% in HBex, and 41% in CON. The optimal target of 1.5 g/kg/day was achieved by 40% in HBex‐Pro, 13% in HBex, and 14% in CON. The HBex‐Pro participants received significantly more total coach contacts [18.5 (6.0) vs. 10.2 (3.8); P < 0.001] and similar total exercise coach contacts [9.40 (3.9) vs. 10.16 (3.8); P = 0.266], with 9.06 (2.6) total diet coach contacts (Table S1).
Discussion
In this VITAMIN trial, we were unable to show an effect of a new HBex and dietary protein intervention on physical performance of community‐dwelling older adults, based on the m‐PPT. Other physical performance tests (SPPB, 6MWT, or TUG) also lacked effect, while gait speed and PAL showed maintenance or improvements over 6 months in the combined exercise+protein group (HBex‐Pro). The control group shows age‐related decline in muscle mass of 2.5% at 12 months, contributing to development of sarcopenia. Improvements in exercise and protein intake resulted in maintenance of muscle mass at 12 months and supported improvement in muscle strength, gait speed, and physical activity.
Previous studies showed the average rate of 0.5–2% annual loss of muscle mass in older adults. 33 , 34 Our control group showed a slightly higher decline of muscle mass over a year. This observed decline might be attributed by prevalence of several medical conditions, physical characteristics, nutritional status, and the periods of incidental physical inactivity. 35
As far as we know, this is the first large RCT on the effects of a blended home‐based exercise programme and protein counselling on physical performance in active older adults. The combination of supervised resistance exercise with protein supplementation is known as the most effective strategy to improve muscle function in older adults. 18 , 19 , 36 Our findings indicate opportunities for a more functional, flexible, and less time‐consuming 37 home‐based strategy in contrast to supervised resistance exercise.
Our community‐dwelling older adults were able to generate a mean number of 12.5 (11.3) functional exercises per week in almost three exercise days per week. In addition, the adherence to the exercise regime (≥2 days/week) in 26 weeks was high (49–75%) in comparison with that of other studies engaging unsupervised home‐based exercise. 12 , 38 The difference between the adherence of the two groups can be attributed to the combined behaviour change in the exercise + protein group vs. the exercise‐only group.
Prolonged use of this blended home‐based exercise programme, therefore, has potential for community‐dwelling older adults to remain physically active. Low physical activity and decreased gait speed are predictors of ADL disability in community‐dwelling people. 39 The observed intervention effects for the exercise+protein group on gait speed and physical activity indicate a preventive strategy for loss of ADL functioning. These effects might be attributed to the blended design and the combined exercise and nutrition behaviour change, because complex and multidomain interventions show more benefits on functional outcomes in older adults. 7 , 40 , 41
Besides, it is encouraging that several changes were observed in executive functioning, especially in the Stroop Color–Word test. This might be related to the e‐health application, which is designed for our aged end‐user with starting visual impairments. The association between physical activity and exercise training with executive functioning is well established. 42 Moreover, the self‐reported perceived health change was also significantly improved, which indicates a more general health impact of the intervention in community‐dwelling older adults. The observed effects might be provided by the combination (blending) of the e‐health application and personalized coaching to change self‐regulation, competence, and motivation. 43 , 44
According to the WHO Healthy Ageing strategy, there is urgency for innovative sustainable exercise and nutrition interventions with an interdisciplinary approach on physical functioning in older adults 45 ; therefore, our newly developed interventions are a major strength. The imbedded functional task exercises showed to be a beneficial, feasible, and complementary strategy 46 in this population with diverse medical conditions. As well, the population size, even distribution of the clusters, study duration, and high adherence support the methodological quality of the cluster RCT study.
Limitations can be pointed out as well. First, the previously mentioned outcomes m‐PPT, SPPB, and RAND‐36 summary scores all had ceiling effects. As the intervention was aimed to be implemented nationwide, we did not select participants on performance level. Participants had a fairly good performance at baseline, as shown in the scale scores at baseline from m‐PPT, SPPB, and RAND‐36. This might have nihilated improvement in performance but maintained other health‐related functions. Second, results of this study may not be generalizable to those older adults without a regular weekly exercise programme. Third, the dropout was higher in the combined intervention and might be attributed to intensity of the combined lifestyle change. As comparable studies are lacking, future studies in community‐dwelling older adults, including an interdisciplinary approach with exercise, nutrition, and e‐health, are therefore recommended.
In conclusion, this HBex and dietary protein intervention did not change physical performance (m‐PPT) in community‐dwelling older adults. However, changes in gait speed, PAL, muscle mass, and strength accompanied by increased dietary protein were observed at 6 months. Effects on protein intake, muscle mass, and strength sustained after termination of the personalized coaching at 12 months.
Conflict of Interest
BV, MT, GtR, BK, RE, and PW all received research grants from the Dutch Taskforce for Applied Research (Regieorgaan SIA), or The Netherlands Organisation for Health Research and Development (ZonMw), all outside of the present work. GtR reported receiving personal fees from Elsevier Ltd, outside of the submitted work. PW reported receiving personal fees from Baxter, Fresenius Kabi, Nestle, and Nutricia, all outside of the submitted work. No other disclosures were reported.
Funding
This work is part of the research project VITAMIN [major funding by the Amsterdam University of Applied Sciences (AUAS) programme Urban Vitality], by Fonds NutsOhra (grant number 101323), and MOTO‐B [funded by Nederlandse Organisatie voor Wetenschappelijk Onderzoek (NWO), the Netherlands Organisation for Scientific Research, grant number 023.006.013 (S. M.)].
Ethical standards
The authors certify that they comply with the ethical guidelines for authorship and publishing of the Journal of Cachexia, Sarcopenia, and Muscle. 47
Contributors
JvdH and SM had full access to all of the data after the study, CvD had full access to all of the data during the study, and take responsibility for the integrity of the data and the accuracy of the data analysis. All authors contributed to interpreting the results and drafting and revising the article. JvdH, SM, CvD, MT, BV, BK, RE, and PW were involved in the study concept and design of the trial protocol. SM, BV, BK, RE, and PW contributed to the funding application of the trial. JvdH, SM, and CvD carried out project administration, technical resources, and primary investigation. SM and BK supervised the design of the e‐health infrastructure. JvdH and CvD were involved in study coordination. JvdH, MT, and PW were study supervisors, whereas PW was the principal investigator of the trial. Formal analysis was executed by JvdH, GtR, and PW. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.
Supporting information
Data S1. Functional training program
Data S2. Coaching schedule of the interventions
Figure S1. App data of home‐based exercise for both intervention groups
Table S1. Intervention, app and coaching results of 26 weeks
Table S2. Effects of exercise and protein on outcome in older adults ‐ per protocol analysis
Table S3. Baseline characteristics of the participants in per protocol analysis
Acknowledgements
We would like to express our gratitude to our colleagues and all 149 students of the Amsterdam University of Applied Sciences (AUAS) who delivered effort and expertise into the design of the interventions and conduction of the trial. Special thanks to Tessa Dadema and Jorinde Scholten as student mentors and for the assistance; Dr. Minse de Bos Kuil as study physician; Dr. Martinette Streppel and Prof. Dr. Jos Twisk for statistical consultations; Aduen Darriba Frederiks and Jesse Beekman for the ICT infrastructure; and our colleagues at ICT services. As well, we would like to thank the municipalities of the Amsterdam metropolitan area and our local sports and health organization collaborators for their hospitality. Finally, we would like to thank AUAS for their trust and available funding.
van den Helder J., Mehra S., van Dronkelaar C., ter Riet G., Tieland M., Visser B., Kröse B. J. A., Engelbert R. H. H., and Weijs P. J. M. (2020) Blended home‐based exercise and dietary protein in community‐dwelling older adults: a cluster randomized controlled trial, Journal of Cachexia, Sarcopenia and Muscle, 11, 1590–1602, 10.1002/jcsm.12634
References
- 1. PRB World population data sheet with focus on changing age structures. 2018. Available from: https://www.prb.org/2018-world-population‐data‐sheet‐with‐focus‐on‐changing‐age‐structures/. Accessed 1 May 2019.
- 2. Cruz‐Jentoft AJ, Bahat G, Bauer J, Boirie Y, Bruyere O, Cederholm T, et al. Sarcopenia: revised European consensus on definition and diagnosis. Age Ageing 2019;48:16–31. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 3. Sherrington C, Whitney JC, Lord SR, Herbert RD, Cumming RG, Close JC. Effective exercise for the prevention of falls: a systematic review and meta‐analysis. J Am Geriatr Soc 2008;56:2234–2243. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 4. Landi F, Calvani R, Picca A, Tosato M, Martone AM, D'Angelo E, et al. Impact of habitual physical activity and type of exercise on physical performance across ages in community‐living people. PLoS One 2018;13:e0191820. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 5. Trombetti A, Reid KF, Hars M, Herrmann FR, Pasha E, Phillips EM, et al. Age‐associated declines in muscle mass, strength, power, and physical performance: impact on fear of falling and quality of life. Osteoporos Int 2016;27:463–471. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 6. Englund DA, Kirn DR, Koochek A, Zhu H, Travison TG, Reid KF, et al. Nutritional supplementation with physical activity improves muscle composition in mobility‐limited older adults, the VIVE2 Study: a randomized, double‐blind, placebo‐controlled trial. J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci 2017;73:95–101. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 7. Romera‐Liebana L, Orfila F, Segura JM, Real J, Fabra ML, Moller M, et al. Effects of a primary care‐based multifactorial intervention on physical and cognitive function in frail, elderly individuals: a randomized controlled trial. J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci 2018;73:1688–1674. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 8. Stiggelbout M, Popkema DY, Hopman‐Rock M, de Greef M, van Mechelen W. Once a week is not enough: effects of a widely implemented group based exercise programme for older adults; a randomised controlled trial. J Epidemiol Community Health 2004;58:83–88. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 9. Schutzer KA, Graves BS. Barriers and motivations to exercise in older adults. Prev Med 2004;39:1056–1061. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 10. Hill KD, Hunter SW, Batchelor FA, Cavalheri V, Burton E. Individualized home‐based exercise programs for older people to reduce falls and improve physical performance: a systematic review and meta‐analysis. Maturitas 2015;82:72–84. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 11. Nelson ME, Layne JE, Bernstein MJ, Nuernberger A, Castaneda C, Kaliton D, et al. The effects of multidimensional home‐based exercise on functional performance in elderly people. J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci 2004;59:154–160. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 12. Simek EM, McPhate L, Haines TP. Adherence to and efficacy of home exercise programs to prevent falls: a systematic review and meta‐analysis of the impact of exercise program characteristics. Prev Med 2012;55:262–275. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 13. Hong J, Kim J, Kim SW, Kong HJ. Effects of home‐based tele‐exercise on sarcopenia among community‐dwelling elderly adults: Body composition and functional fitness. Exp Gerontol 2017;87:33–39. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 14. Muellmann S, Forberger S, Mollers T, Broring E, Zeeb H, Pischke CR. Effectiveness of eHealth interventions for the promotion of physical activity in older adults: a systematic review. Prev Med 2018;108:93–110. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 15. Gardner B, Jovicic A, Belk C, Kharicha K, Iliffe S, Manthorpe J, et al. Specifying the content of home‐based health behaviour change interventions for older people with frailty or at risk of frailty: an exploratory systematic review. BMJ Open 2017;7:e014127. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 16. Geraedts HA, Zijlstra W, Zhang W, Spoorenberg SL, Baez M, Far IK, et al. A home‐based exercise program driven by tablet application and mobility monitoring for frail older adults: feasibility and practical implications. Prev Chronic Dis 2017;14:E12. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 17. Bauer J, Biolo G, Cederholm T, Cesari M, Cruz‐Jentoft AJ, Morley JE, et al. Evidence‐based recommendations for optimal dietary protein intake in older people: a position paper from the PROT‐AGE Study Group. J Am Med Dir Assoc 2013;14:542–559. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 18. Deutz NE, Bauer JM, Barazzoni R, Biolo G, Boirie Y, Bosy‐Westphal A, et al. Protein intake and exercise for optimal muscle function with aging: recommendations from the ESPEN Expert Group. Clin Nutr 2014;33:929–936. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 19. Liao CD, Tsauo JY, Wu YT, Cheng CP, Chen HC, Huang YC, et al. Effects of protein supplementation combined with resistance exercise on body composition and physical function in older adults: a systematic review and meta‐analysis. Am J Clin Nutr 2017;106:1078–1091. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 20. Mehra S, Visser B, Dadema T, van den Helder J, Engelbert RH, Weijs PJ, et al. Translating behavior change principles into a blended exercise intervention for older adults: design study. JMIR Res Protoc 2018;7:e117. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 21. van den Helder J, van Dronkelaar C, Tieland M, Mehra S, Dadema T, Visser B, et al. A digitally supported home‐based exercise training program and dietary protein intervention for community dwelling older adults: protocol of the cluster randomised controlled VITAMIN trial. BMC Geriatr 2018;18:183. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 22. Mehra S, Visser B, Cila N, van den Helder J, Engelbert RH, Weijs PJ, et al. Supporting older adults in exercising with a tablet: a usability study. JMIR Hum Factors 2019;6:e11598. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 23. Brown M, Sinacore DR, Binder EF, Kohrt WM. Physical and performance measures for the identification of mild to moderate frailty. J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci 2000;55:M350–M355. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 24. Mijnarends DM, Meijers JM, Halfens RJ, ter Borg S, Luiking YC, Verlaan S, et al. Validity and reliability of tools to measure muscle mass, strength, and physical performance in community‐dwelling older people: a systematic review. J Am Med Dir Assoc 2013;14:170–178. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 25. Perera S, Mody SH, Woodman RC, Studenski SA. Meaningful change and responsiveness in common physical performance measures in older adults. J Am Geriatr Soc 2006;54:743–749. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 26. Villareal DT, Chode S, Parimi N, Sinacore DR, Hilton T, Armamento‐Villareal R, et al. Weight loss, exercise, or both and physical function in obese older adults. N Engl J Med 2011;364:1218–1229. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 27. van der Ploeg HP, Merom D, Chau JY, Bittman M, Trost SG, Bauman AE. Advances in population surveillance for physical activity and sedentary behavior: reliability and validity of time use surveys. Am J Epidemiol 2010;172:1199–1206. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 28. Lührmann PM, Herbert BM, Gaster C, Neuhäuser‐Berthold M. Validation of a self‐administered 3‐day estimated dietary record for use in the elderly. Eur J Nutr 1999;38:235–240. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 29. Hays RD, Morales LS. The RAND‐36 measure of health‐related quality of life. Ann Med 2001;33:350–357. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 30. Yesavage JA, Brink TL, Rose TL, Lum O, Huang V, Adey M, et al. Development and validation of a geriatric depression screening scale: a preliminary report. J Psychiatr Res 1982;17:37–49. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 31. Delis DC, Kramer JH, Kaplan E, Holdnack J. Reliability and validity of the Delis–Kaplan Executive Function System: an update. J Int Neuropsychol Soc 2004;10:301–303. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 32. Twisk J, Bosman L, Hoekstra T, Rijnhart J, Welten M, Heymans M. Different ways to estimate treatment effects in randomised controlled trials. Contemp Clin Trials Commun 2018;10:80–85. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 33. Hughes VA, Frontera WR, Roubenoff R, Evans WJ, Singh MA. Longitudinal changes in body composition in older men and women: role of body weight change and physical activity. Am J Clin Nutr 2002;76:473–481. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 34. Mitchell W, Atherton P, Williams J, Larvin M, Lund J, Narici M. Sarcopenia, dynapenia, and the impact of advancing age on human skeletal muscle size and strength; a quantitative review. Frontiers in Physiology 2012;3. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 35. Tieland M, Trouwborst I, Clark BC. Skeletal muscle performance and ageing. J Cachexia Sarcopenia Muscle 2018;9:3–19. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 36. Vikberg S, Sorlen N, Branden L, Johansson J, Nordstrom A, Hult A, et al. Effects of resistance training on functional strength and muscle mass in 70‐year‐old individuals with pre‐sarcopenia: a randomized controlled trial. J Am Med Dir Assoc 2019;20:28–34. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 37. Batsis JA, DiMilia PR, Seo LM, Fortuna KL, Kennedy MA, Blunt HB, et al. Effectiveness of ambulatory telemedicine care in older adults: a systematic review. J Am Geriatr Soc 2019;67:1737–1749. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 38. Kis O, Buch A, Stern N, Moran DS. Minimally supervised home‐based resistance training and muscle function in older adults: a meta‐analysis. Arch Gerontol Geriatr 2019;84:103909. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 39. Vermeulen J, Neyens JC, van Rossum E, Spreeuwenberg MD, de Witte LP. Predicting ADL disability in community‐dwelling elderly people using physical frailty indicators: a systematic review. BMC Geriatr 2011;11:33. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 40. Chan DD, Tsou HH, Chang CB, Yang RS, Tsauo JY, Chen CY, et al. Integrated care for geriatric frailty and sarcopenia: a randomized control trial. J Cachexia Sarcopenia Muscle 2017;8:78–88. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 41. Dedeyne L, Deschodt M, Verschueren S, Tournoy J, Gielen E. Effects of multi‐domain interventions in (pre)frail elderly on frailty, functional, and cognitive status: a systematic review. Clin Interv Aging 2017;12:873–896. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 42. Levin O, Netz Y, Ziv G. The beneficial effects of different types of exercise interventions on motor and cognitive functions in older age: a systematic review. Eur Rev Aging Phys Act 2017;14:20. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 43. Aalbers T, Baars MA, Rikkert MG. Characteristics of effective Internet‐mediated interventions to change lifestyle in people aged 50 and older: a systematic review. Ageing Res Rev 2011;10:487–497. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 44. Krebs P, Prochaska JO, Rossi JS. A meta‐analysis of computer‐tailored interventions for health behavior change. Prev Med 2010;51:214–221. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 45. WHO Global strategy and action plan on ageing and health. 2017. Available from: https://www.who.int/ageing/global‐strategy/en/. Accessed 5 Aug 2019.
- 46. Weber M, Belala N, Clemson L, Boulton E, Hawley‐Hague H, Becker C, et al. Feasibility and effectiveness of intervention programmes integrating functional exercise into daily life of older adults: a systematic review. Gerontology 2018;64:172–187. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 47. von Haehling S, Morley JE, Coats AJS, Anker SD. Ethical guidelines for publishing in the Journal of Cachexia, Sarcopenia and Muscle: update 2019. J Cachexia Sarcopenia Muscle 2019;10:1143–1145. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Associated Data
This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.
Supplementary Materials
Data S1. Functional training program
Data S2. Coaching schedule of the interventions
Figure S1. App data of home‐based exercise for both intervention groups
Table S1. Intervention, app and coaching results of 26 weeks
Table S2. Effects of exercise and protein on outcome in older adults ‐ per protocol analysis
Table S3. Baseline characteristics of the participants in per protocol analysis