Professional Documents
Culture Documents
The online version of this article, along with updated information and services, can be
found online at: http://ptjournal.apta.org/content/91/12/1740
Collections
e-Letters
E-mail alerts
Advances in
Disability Research
Impact of Exercise to Improve
Gait Efficiency on Activity and
Participation in Older Adults
With Mobility Limitations:
A Randomized Controlled Trial
Jessie M. VanSwearingen, Subashan Perera, Jennifer S. Brach, David Wert,
Stephanie A. Studenski
J.M. VanSwearingen, PT, PhD,
FAPTA, Department of Physical
Therapy, School of Health and
Rehabilitation Sciences, University of Pittsburgh, 6035 Forbes
Tower, Pittsburgh, PA 15260
(USA). Address all correspondence to Dr VanSwearingen at:
jessievs@pitt.edu.
S. Perera, PhD, Division of Geriatric Medicine, Department of Medicine, University of Pittsburgh.
J.S. Brach, PT, PhD, Department of
Physical Therapy, School of Health
and Rehabilitation Sciences, University of Pittsburgh.
D. Wert, PT, MPT, Department of
Physical Therapy, School of Health
and Rehabilitation Sciences, University of Pittsburgh.
S.A. Studenski, MD, MPH, Division
of Geriatric Medicine, Department of Medicine, University of
Pittsburgh.
[VanSwearingen JM, Perera S,
Brach JS, et al. Impact of exercise
to improve gait efficiency on activity and participation in older
adults with mobility limitations: a
randomized controlled trial. Phys
Ther. 2011;91:1740 1751.]
2011 American Physical Therapy
Association
Published Ahead of Print: October
14, 2011
Accepted: May 7, 2011
Submitted: November 15, 2010
Background. Definitive evidence that exercise interventions that improve gait also
reduce disability is lacking. A task-oriented, motor sequence learning exercise intervention has been shown to reduce the energy cost of walking and improve gait speed,
but whether the intervention also improves activity and participation has not been
demonstrated.
Objective. The objective of this study was to compare the impact of a task-oriented,
motor sequence learning exercise (TO) intervention and the impact of an impairmentoriented, multicomponent exercise (IO) intervention on activity and participation outcomes in older adults with mobility limitations. The mediating effects of a change in the
energy cost of walking on changes in activity and participation also were determined.
Results. Activity improved in TO but not in IO for confidence in walking (Gait Efficacy
Scale; mean adjusted difference9.8 [SD3.5]) and physical function (Late-Life FDI basic
lower-extremity component; mean adjusted difference3.5 [SD1.7]). Improvements in
TO were marginally greater than those in IO for gait speed, physical activity, and total
physical function. Participation improved marginally more in TO than in IO for disability
limitations and instrumental role.
Limitations. The older adults were randomized to the intervention group, but differences in baseline measures had to be accounted for in the analyses.
Physical Therapy
Volume 91 Number 12
Downloaded from http://ptjournal.apta.org/ by guest on June 9, 2014
December 2011
Method
Overview
The study methods are described
in detail elsewhere.44 In brief,
we conducted a single-blind clini-
Available With
This Article at
ptjournal.apta.org
Audio Podcast: RCTs on
Disability Intervention in Physical
Therapy and Rehabilitation:
Unique Challenges and
Opportunities symposium
recorded at PT 2011, National
Harbor, Maryland.
Volume 91 Number 12
Downloaded from http://ptjournal.apta.org/ by guest on June 9, 2014
Physical Therapy f
1741
Physical Therapy
Volume 91 Number 12
Downloaded from http://ptjournal.apta.org/ by guest on June 9, 2014
December 2011
December 2011
Volume 91 Number 12
Downloaded from http://ptjournal.apta.org/ by guest on June 9, 2014
Physical Therapy f
1743
Physical Therapy
Volume 91 Number 12
Downloaded from http://ptjournal.apta.org/ by guest on June 9, 2014
December 2011
Results
Activity Outcomes
After treatment, gait speed improved
with both forms of exercise (Tab. 1);
the improvement was marginally
greater in the TO group than in the
IO group. Physical activity increased
marginally more in the TO group
than in the IO group because of a
slight increase in activity in the TO
group and a slight decrease in activity in the IO group. Confidence in
walking, as determined with the
GES, improved 10.8 points in the
TO group but did not change in the
IO group. Physical function (usual
daily activities) improved in the TO
group but not in the IO group. Participants in the TO group demonstrated greater gains in basic lowerextremity functioning than those in
the IO group (Tab. 1).
Volume 91 Number 12
Downloaded from http://ptjournal.apta.org/ by guest on June 9, 2014
Physical Therapy f
1745
1746
Physical Therapy
Volume 91 Number 12
Downloaded from http://ptjournal.apta.org/ by guest on June 9, 2014
.6647
0.01 (0.10)
0.35 (0.10)
0.34 (0.09)
.0266
0.04 (0.10)
0.21 (0.06)
0.26 (0.10)
Energy cost of walking, mL/kgm
cpmcounts per minute, GESGait Efficacy Scale, Late-Life FDILate-Life Function and Disability Instrument, Totaloverall functioning, Basic LEbasic lower-extremity functioning, Advanced
LEadvanced lower-extremity functioning.
b
Between-group mean difference at baseline.
.0002
0.10 (0.03)
.0844
6.5 (3.7)
.5474
1.1 (8.4)
66.7 (9.7)
66.1 (9.3)
.0955
5.1 (13.6)
72.3 (10.9)
Late-Life FDI instrumental role,
0100
77.4 (13.8)
.0984
5.3 (3.1)
.7107
0.63 (7.7)
67.2 (8.1)
67.1 (9.2)
.1303
4.1 (11.56)
76.7 (15.5)
72.7 (11.0)
Late-Life FDI limitations, 0100b
Participation
.0379
.1230
2.6 (1.7)
.4068
3.5 (1.7)
.6763
0.5 (5.6)
0.9 (5.4)
63.6 (7.4)
43.2 (6.2)
44.1 (6.0)
63.1 (7.6)
.0032
.2090
2.0 (7.3)
4.05 (5.9)
67.3 (10.02)
63.3 (10.8)
44.5 (12.3)
46.4 (9.4)
.0081
.1154
1.8 (1.1)
9.8 (3.5)
.6504
.7106
.0970
1.3 (13.8)
0.3 (3.3)
54.8 (4.7)
71.3 (11.2)
72.6 (13.5)
54.5 (4.6)
.0508
.0065
10.8 (17.2)
2.1 (4.9)
57.0 (6.3)
54.9 (7.6)
Late-Life FDI total, 0100
80.3 (13.9)
69.5 (20.2)
GES score, 10100
0.07 (0.04)
15.5 (9.1)
.1304
.0002
10.9 (31.6)
0.14 (0.15)
0.96 (0.19)
110.8 (62.1)
120.6 (69.2)
0.82 (0.13)
.0001
.5915
3.5 (30.4)
0.21 (0.14)
1.09 (0.13)
0.88 (0.13)
Gait speed, m/sb
Activity
152.8 (53.5)
P
Change
After
Intervention
Before
Intervention
P
Change
After
Intervention
Before
Intervention
Measure
Task Oriented,
Motor Sequence Learning Exercise,
X (SD), n23
147.9 (56.3)
Adjusted
Group
Difference
(SE)
Treatment Group
Baseline Status and Postintervention Activity and Participation Outcomes by Treatment Groupa
Table 1.
We assessed the results for a mediating effect of the change in gait efficiency by examining the change in
the between-intervention difference
estimate due to additionally including the change in the energy cost of
walking as a predictor. The change
in gait efficiency partially explained
the intervention-related changes in
some activity and participation outcomes, based on the reduction in the
between-intervention difference estimate (Tab. 2, Fig. 2). The reduction
in the difference estimate due to
the change in gait efficiency represented a small meaningful change80
for the activity outcome of gait
speed. The adjusted mean difference
estimate increased for the Late-Life
FDI disability limitation and instrumental role outcomes, an indication
of no mediating effect of the change
in gait efficiency on the participation outcomes. The impact of the
change in the energy cost of walking on the between-group difference
in mean changes in activity and participation outcomes did not persist
when additional methods (Sobel test
and bootstrap confidence intervals)
were used to test the significance of
the mediating or indirect effects78,79
(Tab. 2).
Impairment Oriented,
Multicomponent Exercise,
X (SD), n24
Activity, cpm
Participation Outcomes
The improvement in participation
was marginally greater in the TO
group than in the IO group (Tab. 1).
Values for both disability limitations
and instrumental role increased marginally more in the TO group than in
the IO group. Although the adjusted
mean differences for the participation outcomes were marginally significant, both exceeded a moderate
effect size for the measures (Fig. 1).
.1038
December 2011
Discussion
The TO program led to greater gains
in some activity and participation
outcomes than the IO program.
These greater gains appeared to be
partially mediated by the improvement in gait efficiency; however,
these indirect effects could not be
substantiated by the formal statistical
tests of mediation.
Both task-oriented and impairmentoriented interventions improved gait
speed. The gait speed improvement
was equal to or greater than that
observed in previous exercise intervention trials for older adults with
walking problems.11,13,16,17,19 21,23
Only the task-oriented intervention
improved gait and improved some
activity and participation outcomes
for the older adults studied.
After the TO program, activity
improved in terms of daily physical
function, specifically, basic activities
of daily living involving the lower
extremities, and total physical function and participation improved marginally. The impact of the motor
sequence learning exercise on basic
lower-extremity functioning, with a
marginal impact on total physical
function and disability, may be secondary to the focus of the intervention on fixing gait. The motor
sequence learning intervention was
targeted at correcting deficits in the
muscle patterns of stepping and
integrating posture with the phases
of gait through task-oriented, progressive stepping and walking tasks
and treadmill-paced practice. Many
of the items on the Late-Life FDI
basic lower-extremity functioning
subscale represent stepping activities or short-distance, indoor walking,7 which most likely require path
adjustments to walk around objects
such as chairs and tables and turning
to enter or exit a room. Similarly,
the specificity of the exercise may
explain the better activity and participation outcomes after the TO
December 2011
Figure 1.
Between-group adjusted mean differences in activity and participation outcomes relative to small and moderate effect sizes for the variables. The radar graph provides an
overall view of the between-group differences in the activity and participation variables.
The adjusted between-group differences for each variable are plotted on separate spikes
of the radar. The thick solid line connects the adjusted between-group differences for
the variables. The estimated meaningful differences for each variable are represented as
small meaningful changes (area enclosed by the dashed line) and moderate meaningful
changes (area enclosed by the dotted line). The meaningful differences for each variable
were estimated by calculating a small effect as 0.2 baseline standard deviation of the
sample mean of the variable and a moderate effect as 0.5 baseline standard deviation
of the sample mean of the variable. The values for gait speed and activity were adjusted
by a multiple of 10 so that the same scale could be used in the axes for all of the
variables. For gait speed, the actual value was the value shown times 102; for activity,
the actual value was the value shown times 10. Asterisks indicate participation variables.
cpmcounts per minute, GESGait Efficacy Scale, Instrumentalinstrumental role,
Late-Life FDILate-Life Function and Disability Instrument, LElower extremity,
Limitationsdisability limitations.
changing directions, this intervention was not goal oriented for walking and did not change basic lowerextremity functioning.
The motor sequence learning exercise also differed from the impairmentbased exercise in that the stepping
and walking patterns in the TO program were designed to facilitate the
implicit motor learning of movement patterns.37,83,84 The exercise
activities in the TO program were
all task oriented (eg, step across
and walk around cones [to form
an oval]), but there was no mention
Volume 91 Number 12
Downloaded from http://ptjournal.apta.org/ by guest on June 9, 2014
Physical Therapy f
1747
P for
Estimate
Change in
Estimatec
Sobel Method
P for Change
Bootstrap Method
Change in Estimate
(95% CI)
0.06 (0.04)
.16
0.055
.1255
Activity, cpm
16.9 (9.5)
.08
2.6
.7794
9.2 (3.7)
.02
1.3
.5001
Measure
Activity
2.6 (1.2)
.03
0.70
.4904
4.6 (1.7)
.01
0.56
.4475
3.9 (1.7)
.03
0.11
.6826
5.6 (3.2)
.09
1.5
.8804
6.4 (3.8)
.10
2.5
.7281
Participation
a
CIconfidence interval, cpmcounts per minute, GESGait Efficacy Scale, Late-Life FDILate-Life Function and Disability Instrument, Totaloverall
functioning, Basic LEbasic lower-extremity functioning, Advanced LEadvanced lower-extremity functioning.
b
Mean difference estimate for task-oriented, motor sequence learning exercise versus impairment-oriented, multicomponent exercise, adjusted for age, sex,
baseline value for the outcome variable, and baseline value of the energy cost of walking.
c
Change in the mean difference estimate, adjusted for age, sex, baseline value for the outcome variable, baseline value of the energy cost of walking, and
mean change in the energy cost of walking.
Figure 2.
Change in the estimates of the between-group adjusted mean differences explained by a change in gait efficiency. The black bars
represent the between-group mean differences in the change in each variable from baseline to follow-up, adjusted for the covariates
age, sex, and baseline value for the outcome variable. The gray bars represent the between-group mean differences in each variable
from baseline to follow-up, adjusted for the covariates age, sex, baseline value for the outcome variable, baseline value of the energy
cost of walking, and change in the energy cost of walking. A comparison of the gray bars with the black bars illustrates the mediating
effects of the change in the energy cost of walking on changes in activity and participation outcomes. The values for gait speed and
activity were adjusted by a multiple of 10 so that the same scale could be used in the axes for all of the variables. For gait speed, the
actual value was the value shown 102; for activity, the actual value was the value shown 10. Asterisks indicate participation
variables. cpmcounts per minute, GESGait Efficacy Scale, Late-Life FDILate-Life Function and Disability Instrument, LElower
extremity.
1748
Physical Therapy
Volume 91 Number 12
Downloaded from http://ptjournal.apta.org/ by guest on June 9, 2014
December 2011
Conclusion
An exercise intervention that
improved gait also improved some
activity and participation outcomes.
A task-oriented, motor sequence
learning intervention targeted to
fix gait may have a greater potential to affect activity and participation. The mechanism of the effect of
such an intervention on disability in
older adults with mobility limitations
is not clear.
Dr VanSwearingen, Dr Brach, and Dr
Studenski provided concept/idea/research
design. Dr VanSwearingen, Dr Perera, Dr
Brach, and Mr Wert provided writing. Dr
VanSwearingen, Mr Wert, and Dr Studenski
provided data collection. Dr VanSwearingen
and Dr Perera provided data analysis. Dr
VanSwearingen provided project management and institutional liaisons. Dr VanSwearingen, Dr Brach, and Dr Studenski provided
fund procurement. All authors provided consultation (including review of manuscript
before submission).
This study was approved by the University of
Pittsburgh Institutional Review Board.
The data from this study were presented at
the Annual Conference of the American
Physical Therapy Association; June 8 11,
2011; Baltimore, Maryland.
This work was supported by the Pittsburgh
Older Americans Independence Center (NIA
P30 AG024827) and a Beeson Career Development Award (NIA K23 AG026766).
Volume 91 Number 12
Downloaded from http://ptjournal.apta.org/ by guest on June 9, 2014
Physical Therapy f
1749
References
1 Brach JS, Studenski SA, Perera S, et al. Gait
variability and the risk of incident mobility
disability in community-dwelling older
adults. J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci. 2007;
62:983988.
2 Guralnik JM, Ferrucci L, Balfour JL, et al.
Progressive versus catastrophic loss of the
ability to walk: implications for the prevention of mobility loss. J Am Geriatr Soc.
2001;49:14631470.
3 Hausdorff JM, Edelberg HK, Mitchell SL,
et al. Increased gait unsteadiness in
community-dwelling elderly fallers. Arch
Phys Med Rehabil. 1997;78:278 283.
4 Hausdorff JM, Rios DA, Edelberg HK.
Gait variability and fall risk in communityliving older adults: a 1-year prospective
study. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2001;82:
1050 1056.
5 Maki BE. Gait changes in older adults: predictors of falls or indicators of fear? J Am
Geriatr Soc. 1997;45:313320.
6 Guralnik JM, Simonsick EM, Ferrucci L,
et al. A short physical performance battery
assessing lower extremity function: association with self-reported disability and
prediction of mortality and nursing home
admission. J Gerontol. 1994;49:M85M94.
7 Haley SM, Jette AM, Coster WJ, et al. Late
Life Function and Disability Instrument, II:
development and evaluation of the function component. J Gerontol A Biol Sci
Med Sci. 2002;57:M217M222.
8 Guralnik JM, Ferrucci L, Simonsick EM,
et al. Lower-extremity function in persons
over the age of 70 years as a predictor of
subsequent disability. N Engl J Med. 1995;
332:556 561.
9 Guralnik JM, Ferrucci L, Pieper CF, et al.
Lower extremity function and subsequent
disability: consistency across studies, predictive models, and value of gait speed
alone compared with the short physical
performance battery. J Gerontol A Biol Sci
Med Sci. 2000;55:M221M231.
10 Fiatarone MA, Marks MA, Ryan EC, et al.
High intensity strength training in nonagenarians: effects on skeletal muscle. JAMA.
1990;263:3029 3034.
11 Judge JO, Underwood M, Gennosa T. Exercise to improve gait velocity in older
adults. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 1993;74:
400 406.
12 Mian OS, Thom JM, Ardigo LP, et al. Effect
of a 12-month physical conditioning programme on the metabolic cost of walking
in healthy older adults. Eur J Appl Physiol.
2007;100:499 505.
13 Brown M, Holloszy JO. Effects of a low
intensity exercise program on selected
physical performance characteristics of
60- to 71-year olds. Aging (Milano). 1991;
3:129 139.
1750
Physical Therapy
Volume 91 Number 12
Downloaded from http://ptjournal.apta.org/ by guest on June 9, 2014
December 2011
December 2011
58 Gersten J, Orr W. External work of walking in hemiparetic patients. Scand J Rehabil Med. 1971;3:85 88.
59 Macko RF, DeSouza CA, Tretter LD,
et al.Treadmill aerobic exercise training
reduces the energy expenditure and cardiovascular demands of hemiparetic gait
in chronic stroke patients: a preliminary
report. Stroke. 1997;28:326 330.
60 Waters RL, Lunsford BR. Energy cost of
paraplegic ambulation. J Bone Joint Surg
Am. 1985;67:12451250.
61 Waters RL, Banres G, Husserl T, et al. Comparable energy expenditure following
arthrodesis of the hip and ankle. J Bone
Joint Surg Am. 1988;70:10321037.
62 Ijzerman KJ, Baardman G, vant Hof MA,
et al. Validity and reproducibility of crutch
force and heart rate measurements to
assess energy expenditure of paraplegic
gait. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 1999;80:
10171023.
63 Boyd R, Fatone S, Rodda J, et al. High- or
low-technology measurements of energy
expenditure in clinical gait analysis? Dev
Med Child Neurol. 1999;41:676 682.
64 Hood VL, Granat MH, Maxwell DJ, Hasler
JP. A new method of using heart rate to
represent energy expenditure: the Total
Heart Beat Index. Arch Phys Med Rehabil.
2002;83:1266 1273.
65 MacGregor J. The objective measurement
of physical performance with long term
ambulatory physiological surveillance
equipment (LAPSE). In: Stott FD, Raftery
EB, Goulding L, eds. Proceedings of the
Third International Symposium on
Ambulatory Monitoring. London, United
Kingdom: Academic Press; 1979:29 39.
66 Gleim GW, Stachenfeld NS, Nicholas JA.
The influence of flexibility on the economy of walking and jogging. J Orthop Res.
1990;8:814 823.
67 Gentile A. Skill acquisition: action, movement, and neuromotor processes. In: Carr
JH, Shepherd RB, Gordon J, et al, eds.
Movement Sciences. Rockville, MD: Aspen
Publishers; 1987:93154.
68 Schmidt RA. Organizing and scheduling
practice. In: Schmidt RA, ed. Motor Learning and Practice: From Principles to
Practice. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics
Books; 1991:199 225.
69 Doyon J, Benali H. Reorganization and
plasticity in the adult brain during learning
of motor skills. Curr Opin Neurol. 2005;
15:161167.
70 Daly JJ, Ruff RL. Construction of efficacious gait and upper limb functional interventions based on brain plasticity evidence and model-based measures for
stroke patients. ScientificWorldJournal.
2007;7:20312045.
Volume 91 Number 12
Downloaded from http://ptjournal.apta.org/ by guest on June 9, 2014
Physical Therapy f
1751
References
Cited by
Subscription
Information
http://ptjournal.apta.org/site/misc/ifora.xhtml