↓ Skip to main content

Nordic walking training and nutritional supplementation in pre-frail older Indians: an open-labelled experimental pre-test and post-test pilot study to develop intervention model

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Geriatrics, September 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (87th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (81st percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
policy
1 policy source
twitter
9 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
11 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
160 Mendeley
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
Nordic walking training and nutritional supplementation in pre-frail older Indians: an open-labelled experimental pre-test and post-test pilot study to develop intervention model
Published in
BMC Geriatrics, September 2018
DOI 10.1186/s12877-018-0890-4
Pubmed ID
Authors

Prasun Chatterjee, Prakash Kumar, Ramesh Kandel, Ruchika Madan, Meenakshi Tyagi, Deepa Anil Kumar, Maroof Ahmad Khan, Gaurav Desai, Preeti Chaudhary, Shyama Gupta, Kanika Grover, Aparajit Ballav Dey

Abstract

Identifying and treating people in a pre-frail state may be an effective way to prevent or delay frailty and preserve their functional capacity. This study aimed to assess the efficacy of, and compliance with, a 12 week individualized nutritional supplementation (INS) and Nordic walking (NW) program in pre-frail older Indians. The primary measure is physical performance, as indicated by Fried's Frailty scale. Other measures include: cognition, as indicated by the Hindi Mental Status Examination; mood, by the Geriatric Depression Scale; and nutritional status, by the Mini Nutritional Assessment. This is an open-labeled experimental pre-test and post-test study, which took place from October 2012 to December 2014. The study was approved by Institute Ethics committee (IEC/NP-350/2012/RP-26/2012) at the All India Institute of Medical Sciences (AIIMS), New Delhi. Participants were sixty-six pre-frail elderly, who were randomly allocated into three subgroups, namely: A (NW only), B (INS only), and C (NW and INS). One-way ANOVA was used to statistically assess differences in baseline characteristics for quantitative variables, with the Chi-Square/Fischer exact test utilized for qualitative variables. Paired t-tests were used to assess pre and post intervention difference within the group for quantitative variables, with McNemar's Chi-Square test used for qualitative variables. Kruskal Wallis test was used to assess significant intervention effects among the groups. A p-value < 0.05 was considered as statistically significant. There was significant effect of intervention in gait speed in group A (p = 0.001) and C (p = 0.002), but not in group B (p = 0.926). While there was no significant change in grip strength in Group A (p = 0.488) and B (p = 0.852), a statistically significant increase was observed in group C (p = 0.013). Mood significantly improved in group B (p = 0.025) and C (p = 0.021). No significant difference was noted in cognitive status across groups. Following the interventions, a total of 18.18% of pre-frail participants were classified as non-frail. Combining NW and INS provides a simple, pragmatic intervention with efficacy in the management of functionally vulnerable older adults, and allows their maintained independence. Future studies should replicate this readily applicable intervention in a larger cohort with a longer follow-up period. Clinical Trial Registry-India CTRI/2016/05/006937 [Registered on: 16/05/2016]; Trial was Registered Retrospectively.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 9 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 160 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 160 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 24 15%
Student > Bachelor 18 11%
Student > Ph. D. Student 16 10%
Researcher 14 9%
Other 6 4%
Other 22 14%
Unknown 60 38%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 18 11%
Nursing and Health Professions 17 11%
Sports and Recreations 13 8%
Psychology 11 7%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 5 3%
Other 25 16%
Unknown 71 44%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 16. 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 16 July 2020.
All research outputs
#2,008,563
of 23,504,694 outputs
Outputs from BMC Geriatrics
#462
of 3,189 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#43,657
of 338,396 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Geriatrics
#16
of 79 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,504,694 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 91st percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,189 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 9.9. This one has done well, scoring higher than 85% of its peers.
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 338,396 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 87% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 79 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 81% of its contemporaries.