↓ Skip to main content

The effect of intervening hospitalizations on the benefit of structured physical activity in promoting independent mobility among community-living older persons: secondary analysis of a randomized…

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Medicine, March 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (64th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
8 X users

Readers on

mendeley
145 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
The effect of intervening hospitalizations on the benefit of structured physical activity in promoting independent mobility among community-living older persons: secondary analysis of a randomized controlled trial
Published in
BMC Medicine, March 2017
DOI 10.1186/s12916-017-0824-6
Pubmed ID
Authors

Thomas M. Gill, Daniel P. Beavers, Jack M. Guralnik, Marco Pahor, Roger A. Fielding, Michelle Hauser, Todd M. Manini, Anthony P. Marsh, Mary M. McDermott, Anne B. Newman, Heather G. Allore, Michael E. Miller, for the LIFE Study Investigators

Abstract

Among older persons, disability is often precipitated by intervening illnesses and injuries leading to hospitalization. In the Lifestyle Interventions and Independence for Elders (LIFE) Study, a structured moderate-intensity physical activity program, compared with a health education program, was shown to significantly reduce the amount of time spent with major mobility disability (MMD) over the course of 3.5 years. We aimed to determine whether the benefit of the physical activity program in promoting independent mobility was diminished in the setting of intervening hospitalizations. We analyzed data from a single-blinded, parallel group randomized trial (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT01072500). In this trial, 1635 sedentary persons, aged 70-89 years, who had functional limitations but were able to walk 400 m, were randomized from eight US centers between February 2010 and December 2013: 818 to physical activity (800 received intervention) and 817 to health education (805 received intervention). Intervening hospitalizations and MMD, defined as the inability to walk 400 m, were assessed every 6 months for up to 3.5 years. For both the physical activity and health education groups, intervening hospitalizations were strongly associated with the initial onset of MMD and inversely associated with recovery from MMD, defined as a transition from initial MMD onset to no MMD. The benefit of the physical activity intervention did not differ significantly based on hospital exposure. For onset of MMD, the hazard ratios (HR) were 0.79 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.58-1.1) and 0.77 (0.62-0.95) in the presence and absence of intervening hospitalizations, respectively (P-interaction, 0.903). For recovery of MMD, the magnitude of effect was modestly greater among participants who were hospitalized (HR 1.5, 95% CI 0.71-3.0) than in those who were not hospitalized (HR 1.2, 95% CI 0.88-1.7), but this difference did not achieve statistical significance (P-interaction, 0.670). Intervening hospitalizations had strong deleterious effects on the onset of MMD and recovery from MMD, but did not diminish the beneficial effect of the LIFE physical activity intervention in promoting independent mobility. To achieve sustained benefits over time, structured physical activity programs should be designed to accommodate acute illnesses and injuries leading to hospitalizations given their high frequency in older persons with functional limitations. ClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT01072500 .

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 8 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 145 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 145 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 23 16%
Student > Ph. D. Student 18 12%
Student > Bachelor 11 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 9 6%
Researcher 8 6%
Other 23 16%
Unknown 53 37%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 27 19%
Sports and Recreations 19 13%
Medicine and Dentistry 14 10%
Social Sciences 8 6%
Neuroscience 4 3%
Other 12 8%
Unknown 61 42%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 19 June 2017.
All research outputs
#6,850,054
of 22,961,203 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medicine
#2,484
of 3,448 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#108,930
of 308,511 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medicine
#53
of 65 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,961,203 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 69th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,448 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 43.6. This one is in the 27th percentile – i.e., 27% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 308,511 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 64% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 65 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 16th percentile – i.e., 16% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.