Group or individual lifestyle-integrated functional exercise (LiFE)? A qualitative analysis of acceptability

Leah Reicherzer; Franziska Kramer-Gmeiner; Sarah Labudek; Carl-Philipp Jansen; Corinna Nerz; Malin J Nystrand; Clemens Becker; Lindy Clemson; Michael Schwenk

doi:10.1186/s12877-020-01991-0

Group or individual lifestyle-integrated functional exercise (LiFE)? A qualitative analysis of acceptability

BMC Geriatr. 2021 Feb 1;21(1):93. doi: 10.1186/s12877-020-01991-0.

Authors

Leah Reicherzer¹, Franziska Kramer-Gmeiner², Sarah Labudek², Carl-Philipp Jansen², Corinna Nerz³, Malin J Nystrand¹, Clemens Becker³, Lindy Clemson⁴, Michael Schwenk⁵

Affiliations

¹ School of Public Health and Community Medicine, University of Gothenburg, Gothenburg, Sweden.
² Network Aging Research (NAR), Heidelberg University, Heidelberg, Germany.
³ Department of Clinical Gerontology and Geriatric Rehabilitation, Robert-Bosch-Hospital, Stuttgart, Germany.
⁴ Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia.
⁵ Network Aging Research (NAR), Heidelberg University, Heidelberg, Germany. schwenk@nar.uni-heidelberg.de.

Abstract

Background: The Lifestyle-integrated Functional Exercise (LiFE) program is an effective but resource-intensive fall prevention program delivered one-to-one in participants' homes. A recently developed group-based LiFE (gLiFE) could enhance large-scale implementability and decrease resource intensity. The aim of this qualitative focus group study is to compare participants' experiences regarding acceptability of gLiFE vs LiFE.

Methods: Programs were delivered in seven group sessions (gLiFE) or seven individual home visits (LiFE) within a multi-center, randomized non-inferiority trial. Four structured focus group discussions (90-100 min duration; one per format and study site) on content, structure, and subjective effects of gLiFE and LiFE were conducted. Qualitative content analysis using the method of inductive category formation by Mayring was applied for data analysis. Coding was managed using NVivo.

Results: In both formats, participants (N = 30, 22 women, n_gLiFE = 15, n_LiFE = 15, mean age 78.8 ± 6.6 years) were positive about content, structure, and support received by trainers. Participants reflected on advantages of both formats: the social aspects of learning the program in a peer group (gLiFE), and benefits of learning the program at home (LiFE). In gLiFE, some difficulties with the implementation of activities were reported. In both formats, the majority of participants reported positive outcomes and successful implementation of new movement habits.

Conclusion: This is the first study to examine participants' views on and experiences with gLiFE and LiFE, revealing strengths and limitations of both formats that can be used for program refinement. Both formats were highly acceptable to participants, suggesting that gLiFE may have similar potential to be adopted by adults aged 70 years and older compared to LiFE.

Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov , NCT03462654 . Registered on March 12, 2018.

Keywords: Fall prevention; Focus groups; Group vs individual exercise; Habit formation; Lifestyle-integrated exercise; Qualitative content analysis; Qualitative methods.

Publication types

Multicenter Study
Randomized Controlled Trial
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't

MeSH terms

Accidental Falls
Aged
Aged, 80 and over
Exercise*
Female
Habits
Humans
Life Style*
Physical Therapy Modalities

Associated data

ClinicalTrials.gov/NCT03462654

Grants and funding

01GL1705A-D/Bundesministerium für Bildung und Forschung