Abstract
Objectives: This study aimed to describe objectively measured physical activity and sedentary behavior in geriatric rehabilitation patients receiving care in the home-based compared to the hospital-based setting.
Design: Observational matched cohort study.
Setting and Participants: Home-based (patient's home) or hospital-based (ward) geriatric rehabilitation was delivered to inpatients within the REStORing health of acutely unwell adulTs (RESORT) observational, longitudinal cohort of the Royal Melbourne Hospital (Melbourne, Victoria, Australia).
Methods: Patients were asked to wear ActivPAL4 accelerometers for 1 week and were assessed by a comprehensive geriatric assessment at admission, discharge, and followed up after 3 months. Hospital-based patients were matched to home-based patients for sex and baseline physical function [Short Physical Performance Battery (SPPB), activities (instrumental) of daily living, and Clinical Frailty Scale]. Differences in patient characteristics and physical activity (total, standing and walking durations, number of steps and sit-to stand transitions) and sedentary behavior (total, sitting and lying durations) were assessed.
Results: A total of 159 patients were included: 18 home-based [mean age: 81.9 ± 8.6 years, 38.9% female, median (interquartile range [IQR]) SPPB: 7.0 (5.0-9.0)] and 141 hospital-based [mean age: 82.9 ± 7.8 years, 57.4% female, median (IQR) SPPB: 1.0 (0.0-4.0)] patients, of whom 18 were matched [mean age: 80.1 ± 7.4 years, 38.9% female, median (IQR) SPPB: 6.5 (4.8-10.0)]. Median physical activity measures were consistently higher in home-based patients compared to the total group of hospital-based patients. After matching, physical activity measures remained >2.4 times higher and were significantly different for all measures (total physical activity, standing and walking durations, and steps) except for sit-to-stand transitions. Sedentary behaviors were similar with home-based patients spending non-significantly more time sitting but significantly less time lying than hospital-based patients (matched and total).
Conclusions and Implications: Home-based inpatients are more physically active than hospital-based inpatients independent of matching for sex and baseline physical function, which supports home-based geriatric rehabilitation.
Design: Observational matched cohort study.
Setting and Participants: Home-based (patient's home) or hospital-based (ward) geriatric rehabilitation was delivered to inpatients within the REStORing health of acutely unwell adulTs (RESORT) observational, longitudinal cohort of the Royal Melbourne Hospital (Melbourne, Victoria, Australia).
Methods: Patients were asked to wear ActivPAL4 accelerometers for 1 week and were assessed by a comprehensive geriatric assessment at admission, discharge, and followed up after 3 months. Hospital-based patients were matched to home-based patients for sex and baseline physical function [Short Physical Performance Battery (SPPB), activities (instrumental) of daily living, and Clinical Frailty Scale]. Differences in patient characteristics and physical activity (total, standing and walking durations, number of steps and sit-to stand transitions) and sedentary behavior (total, sitting and lying durations) were assessed.
Results: A total of 159 patients were included: 18 home-based [mean age: 81.9 ± 8.6 years, 38.9% female, median (interquartile range [IQR]) SPPB: 7.0 (5.0-9.0)] and 141 hospital-based [mean age: 82.9 ± 7.8 years, 57.4% female, median (IQR) SPPB: 1.0 (0.0-4.0)] patients, of whom 18 were matched [mean age: 80.1 ± 7.4 years, 38.9% female, median (IQR) SPPB: 6.5 (4.8-10.0)]. Median physical activity measures were consistently higher in home-based patients compared to the total group of hospital-based patients. After matching, physical activity measures remained >2.4 times higher and were significantly different for all measures (total physical activity, standing and walking durations, and steps) except for sit-to-stand transitions. Sedentary behaviors were similar with home-based patients spending non-significantly more time sitting but significantly less time lying than hospital-based patients (matched and total).
Conclusions and Implications: Home-based inpatients are more physically active than hospital-based inpatients independent of matching for sex and baseline physical function, which supports home-based geriatric rehabilitation.
| Original language | English |
|---|---|
| Pages (from-to) | 2432-2439.e1 |
| Number of pages | 9 |
| Journal | Journal of the American Medical Directors Association |
| Volume | 22 |
| Issue number | 12 |
| Early online date | 20 May 2021 |
| DOIs | |
| Publication status | Published - Dec 2021 |
Bibliographical note
© 2021 The Authors.Funding
Funding sources: This work was supported by an unrestricted grant of the University of Melbourne (unrestricted grant received by Prof. Andrea B. Maier); the Medical Research Future Fund (MRFF)) provided by the Melbourne Academic Centre for Health (MACH)); and the European Union's Horizon 2020 research and innovation programs under the Marie Skłodowska-Curie grant agreement 675003 and the PreventIT grant agreement 689238.
| Funders | Funder number |
|---|---|
| Medical Research Future Fund | |
| Melbourne Academic Centre for Health | |
| Horizon 2020 Framework Programme | 689238, 675003 |
| European Commission | |
| University of Melbourne |