Use the Back button in your browser to see the other results of your search or to select another record.
Feasibility trial evaluation of a peer volunteering active aging intervention: ACE (Active, Connected, Engaged) |
Stathi A, Withall J, Thompson JL, Davis MG, Gray S, De Koning J, Parkhurst G, Lloyd L, Greaves C, Laventure R, Fox KR |
The Gerontologist 2020 Apr;60(3):571-582 |
clinical trial |
4/10 [Eligibility criteria: Yes; Random allocation: Yes; Concealed allocation: Yes; Baseline comparability: Yes; Blind subjects: No; Blind therapists: No; Blind assessors: No; Adequate follow-up: No; Intention-to-treat analysis: No; Between-group comparisons: No; Point estimates and variability: Yes. Note: Eligibility criteria item does not contribute to total score] *This score has been confirmed* |
BACKGROUND: ACE (Active, Connected, Engaged) is a theory-informed, pragmatic intervention using peer volunteering support to promote active ageing in socially disengaged, inactive older adults. This study aimed to establish ACE's feasibility and acceptability. METHODS: Fifty-four older adults were recruited as either peer volunteers (activators n = 15) or participants (ACEs n = 39). Participants were randomized to one-to-one support from an activator (ACEs-intervention (ACEs-I)) or a waiting-list control group (ACEs-control (ACEs-C)). Activators supported ACEs-I to get out more and engage with local activities. Objectively measured physical activity (PA), lower limb function, and number of out of house activities were assessed at baseline and post-intervention. A mixed-methods process evaluation assessed changes in confidence to get out and about, social support, autonomy, competence, and relatedness. RESULTS: Eighty-two percent of ACEs (mean age 73.7 years (SD 7.3)) and all activators completed assessments at both baseline and post-intervention (6 months). ACEs-I reported more out of house activities (M (SD) 6.34 (4.15)). ACEs-I increased physical function post-intervention (M (SD) 9.8 (2.3)). ACEs-I reported improved well-being and vitality and increased confidence to get out and about, confidence in the face of specific barriers, knowledge of local initiatives, and perceived social support post-intervention. Activators, although sufficiently active at baseline, increased their PA further. ACE was well-accepted and easy to deliver. CONCLUSIONS: ACE is an acceptable and feasible intervention for helping socially disengaged older people to get out and about more, improve their confidence, and engage more with their community.
|