Physical Activity Intervention for Loneliness (PAIL) in community-dwelling older adults: a randomised feasibility study

Anastasia V Shvedko, Janice L Thompson, Carolyn A Greig, Anna C Whittaker, Anastasia V Shvedko, Janice L Thompson, Carolyn A Greig, Anna C Whittaker

Abstract

Background: Low quality social relationships in older adults are strongly associated with feelings of loneliness. Physical activity interventions could reduce loneliness and improve psychological well-being, among other health benefits. The aim of this study was to examine the feasibility of a Physical Activity Intervention for Loneliness (PAIL) in community-dwelling older adults at risk of loneliness.

Methods: The PAIL feasibility study was a 12-week randomized controlled feasibility trial (RCT) conducted in Birmingham, United Kingdom, from February 2018 to August 2018, and ran in two waves of data collection. Eligible participants were community-dwelling adults aged 60 years and older, sedentary (less than 20 min of moderate-to-vigorous PA (MVPA) a week), and at risk of loneliness. The intervention included once-weekly group walk and health education workshop up to 90 min per session in total, with a wait-listed (WL) control group. The primary feasibility outcomes were to estimate recruitment, retention rates and adherence to the intervention. Secondary outcome measures (not blinded assessment) were body mass index, blood pressure, physical activity and psychosocial variables. Process and outcome evaluations were conducted using focus groups interviews. The recruitment and retention progression criteria for the definitive large-scale RCT was set a-priori.

Results: Forty-eight participants were recruited over 4 months with a recruitment rate of 25% (48/195); 52% (25/48) met the inclusion criteria and 100% (25/25) were randomised into the intervention (n = 12) and WL control groups (n = 13). Participants were 25 older adults (mean (SD) 68.5(8.05) years), 14 (56%) female, and 18 (72%) white. At 12 weeks, 10/12 (83.3%) intervention and 10/13 (76.9%) control participants completed the final assessments. The average attendance rate was 58.3% for the intervention group (range 33.0%-75.0%) and 42.3% (range 23.1%-69.2%) among controls. The a priori recruitment and retention criteria for progression were not met. No serious adverse events occurred. The focus group results identified three themes which showed overall positive experiences of participation in PAIL in terms of (1) study design and intervention; (2) walking sessions; and (3) health education workshops.

Conclusions: The findings suggest that community-dwelling older adults at risk of loneliness found the intervention and measures acceptable and could safely participate. However, a more extensive and robust strategy would be needed to support adequate recruitment of lonely older adults and adherence into a definitive RCT.

Trial registration: Clinicaltrials.gov, NCT03458793.

Keywords: Feasibility study; Loneliness; Older adults; Physical activity; Randomised controlled trial.

Conflict of interest statement

Competing interestsThe authors of this article declare that they have no competing interests.

© The Author(s) 2020.

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
CONSORT flow diagram of Physical Activity Intervention for Loneliness (PAIL) intervention.

References

    1. Cacioppo JT, Cacioppo S. Social relationships and health: the toxic effects of perceived social isolation. Soc Pers Psychol Compass. 2014;8:58–72. doi: 10.1111/spc3.12087.
    1. Poscia A, Stojanovic J, La Milia DI, et al. Interventions targeting loneliness and social isolation among the older people: an update systematic review. Exp Gerontol. 2018;102:133–144.
    1. Peplau LA, Cutrona CE. The revised UCLA Loneliness Scale: concurrent and discriminant validity evidence. J Pers Soc Psychol. 1980;39:472–480.
    1. Holt-Lunstad J, Smith TB, Layton JB. Social relationships and mortality risk: a meta-analytic review. PLoS Med. 2010;7:e1000316.
    1. Department of Health. Start active, stay active: report on physical activity in the UK 2016 [].
    1. Physical Activity Guidelines Advisory Committee. 2018 physical activity guidelines advisory committee scientific report Washington, DC: U.S. Departament of Health and Human Services: 2018.
    1. Mindell J, Biddulph JP, Hirani V, et al. Cohort profile: the health survey for England. Int J Epidemiol. 2012;41:1585–1593.
    1. Haskell WL, Lee I-M, Pate RR, et al. Physical activity and public health: updated recommendation for adults from the American College of Sports Medicine and the American Heart Association. Circulation. 2007;116:1081.
    1. Penedo FJ, Dahn JR. Exercise and well-being: a review of mental and physical health benefits associated with physical activity. Curr Opin Psychiatry. 2005;18:189–193.
    1. Ferraro KF, Farmer MM. Social compensation in adulthood and later life. In: Dixon RA, Backman L, editors. Compensating for psychological deficits and declines: managing losses and promoting gain. United States of America: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates; 1995. pp. 127–145.
    1. Biddle SJ, Asare M. Physical activity and mental health in children and adolescents: a review of reviews. British J Sports Med. 2011;45:886–896.
    1. Lubans D., Richards J., Hillman C., Faulkner G., Beauchamp M., Nilsson M., Kelly P., Smith J., Raine L., Biddle S. Physical Activity for Cognitive and Mental Health in Youth: A Systematic Review of Mechanisms. PEDIATRICS. 2016;138(3):e20161642–e20161642.
    1. Ferraro KF, Farmer MM. Social compensation in adulthood and later life. Compensating Psychol Deficits Declines. 1995:127–45.
    1. Stevens N Combating loneliness: a friendship enrichment programme for older women. Ageing Soc. 2001;21:183-202. doi: .
    1. Fredrickson Barbara L. The broaden–and–build theory of positive emotions. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B: Biological Sciences. 2004;359(1449):1367–1377.
    1. Newall NE, Chipperfield JG, Bailis DS, et al Consequences of loneliness on physical activity and mortality in older adults and the power of positive emotions. Health Psychol. 2013;32:921. doi: .
    1. Cohen S, Wills TA. Stress, social support, and the buffering hypothesis. Psychol Bull. 1985;98:310.
    1. Pels F, Kleinert J. Loneliness and physical activity: a systematic review. Int Rev Sport Exerc Psychol. 2016;9:1-30. doi: .
    1. Henry KB, Arrow H, Carini B. A tripartite model of group identification theory and measurement. Small Group Res. 1999;30:558–581.
    1. Shvedko A, Whittaker AC, Thompson JL, et al Physical activity interventions for treatment of social isolation, loneliness or low social support in older adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials. Psychol Sport Exerc. 2018;34:128-137. doi: .
    1. Masi Christopher M., Chen Hsi-Yuan, Hawkley Louise C., Cacioppo John T. A Meta-Analysis of Interventions to Reduce Loneliness. Personality and Social Psychology Review. 2010;15(3):219–266.
    1. Smith GL, Banting L, Eime R, et al. The association between social support and physical activity in older adults: a systematic review. Int J Behav Nutr Phys Activ. 2017;14:56. doi: 10.1186/s12966-017-0509-8.
    1. Fry PS. Predictors of health-related quality of life perspectives, self-esteem, and life satisfactions of older adults following spousal loss an 18-month follow-up study of widows and widowers. Gerontologist. 2001;41:787–798.
    1. Bandura A. Perceived self-efficacy in cognitive development and functioning. Educ Psychol. 1993;28:117–148.
    1. Fry PS, Debats DL. Self-efficacy beliefs as predictors of loneliness and psychological distress in older adults. Int J Aging Hum Dev. 2002;55:233–269.
    1. Taliaferro LA, Rienzo BA, Miller DM, et al. Potential mediating pathways through which sports participation relates to reduced risk of suicidal ideation. Res Q Exerc Sport. 2010;81:328–339.
    1. Eldridge SM, Lancaster GA, Campbell MJ, et al. Defining feasibility and pilot studies in preparation for randomised controlled trials: development of a conceptual framework. PloS One. 2016;11:e0150205.
    1. Johnson RB, Onwuegbuzie AJ. Mixed methods research: a research paradigm whose time has come. Educ Res. 2004;33:14–26.
    1. Eldridge SM, Chan CL, Campbell MJ, et al. CONSORT 2010 statement: extension to randomised pilot and feasibility trials. Pilot Feasibility Stud. 2016;2:64.
    1. Shvedko AV, Thompson JL, Greig CA, et al. Physical activity intervention for loneliness (PAIL) in community-dwelling older adults: protocol for a feasibility study. Pilot Feasibility Stud. 2018;4:187. doi: 10.1186/s40814-018-0379-0.
    1. Hoffmann TC, Glasziou PP, Boutron I, et al. Better reporting of interventions: template for intervention description and replication (TIDieR) checklist and guide. Bmj. 2014;348:g1687.
    1. Miles MB, Huberman AM. Qualitative data analysis: a sourcebook. Beverly Hills: Sage Publications; 1994.
    1. Arain M, Campbell MJ, Cooper CL, et al. What is a pilot or feasibility study? A review of current practice and editorial policy. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2010;10:67.
    1. Stevens M, Hillsdon M, Thorogood M, et al. Cost-effectiveness of a primary care based physical activity intervention in 45-74 year old men and women: a randomised controlled trial. British J Sports Med. 1998;32:236–241.
    1. Hughes ME, Waite LJ, Hawkley LC, et al. A short scale for measuring loneliness in large surveys results from two population-based studies. Res Aging. 2004;26:655–672.
    1. 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:M85–M94.
    1. Pahor M, Guralnik JM, Ambrosius WT, et al. Effect of structured physical activity on prevention of major mobility disability in older adults: the LIFE study randomized clinical trial. JAMA. 2014;311:2387–2396. doi: 10.1001/jama.2014.5616.
    1. Nasreddine ZS, Phillips NA, Bédirian V, et al. The Montreal Cognitive Assessment, MoCA: a brief screening tool for mild cognitive impairment. JAGS. 2005;53:695–699. doi: 10.1111/j.1532-5415.2005.53221.x.
    1. Freitas S, Simões MR, Alves L, et al. Montreal cognitive assessment: validation study for mild cognitive impairment and Alzheimer disease. Alzheimer Dis Assoc Disord. 2013;27:37–43.
    1. Lemon BW, Bengtson VL, Peterson JA. An exploration of the activity theory of aging: activity types and life satisfaction among in-movers to a retirement community. J Gerontol. 1972;27:511-523. doi: .
    1. Move it or lose it. 2019 []. Accessed 2019.
    1. The Birmingham 1000 Elders group. 2017 [].
    1. Birmingham Voluntary Service Council . The consotrium of ageing better. 2016.
    1. American College of Sports Medicine. ACSM’s guidelines for exercise testing and prescription: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins; 2013.
    1. Fox SM, Naughton JP, Haskell WL. Physical activity and the prevention of coronary heart disease. Ann Clin Res. 1971;3:404–432.
    1. Persinger R, Foster C, Gibson M, et al. Consistency of the talk test for exercise prescription. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2004;36:1632–1636. doi: 10.1249/01.MSS.0000074670.03001.98.
    1. Borg E, Kaijser L. A comparison between three rating scales for perceived exertion and two different work tests. Scand J Med Sci Sports. 2006;16:57–69.
    1. Chastin S, Granat M. Methods for objective measure, quantification and analysis of sedentary behaviour and inactivity. Gait Posture. 2010;31:82-86. doi: .
    1. Hays RD, DiMatteo MR. A short-form measure of loneliness. J Pers Assess. 1987;51:69–81.
    1. Sherbourne CD, Stewart AL. The MOS social support survey. Soc Sci Med. 1991;32:705–714.
    1. Lubben J, Blozik E, Gillmann G, et al. Performance of an abbreviated version of the Lubben Social Network Scale among three European community-dwelling older adult populations. Gerontologist. 2006;46:503–513.
    1. Zigmond AS, Snaith RP. The hospital anxiety and depression scale. Acta Psychiatrica Scandinavica. 1983;67:361–370.
    1. Resnick B, Jenkins LS. Testing the reliability and validity of the self-efficacy for exercise scale. Nurs Res. 2000;49:154–159.
    1. Fokkema T, Knipscheer K. Escape loneliness by going digital: a quantitative and qualitative evaluation of a Dutch experiment in using ECT to overcome loneliness among older adults. Ageing & Mental Health. 2007;11:496–504. doi: 10.1080/13607860701366129.
    1. Steinhardt MA, Dishman RK. Reliability and validity of expected outcomes and barriers for habitual physical activity. Journal of Occupational and Environmental Medicine. 1989;31:536–546.
    1. MacDougall C, Fudge E. Planning and recruiting the sample for focus groups and in-depth interviews. Qualitative health research. 2001;11:117–126.
    1. Creswell JW. Qualitative inquiry and research design: choosing among five approaches: Sage publications. 2012.
    1. Erdfelder E, Faul F, Buchner A. GPOWER: a general power analysis program. Behavior research methods, instruments, & computers. 1996;28:1–11.
    1. Gupta SK. Intention-to-treat concept: a review. Perspectives in Clinical Research. 2011;2:109–112. doi: 10.4103/2229-3485.83221.
    1. Fossey E, Harvey C, McDermott F, et al. Understanding and evaluating qualitative research. Australian and New Zealand journal of psychiatry. 2002;36:717–732.
    1. Tesch R. Qualitative research: analysis types and software: Routledge. 2013.
    1. Wilson EB. Probable inference, the law of succession, and statistical inference. Journal of the American Statistical Association. 1927;22:209–212.
    1. Age Concern UK . Loneliness and isolation evidence review. 2016.
    1. Jopling K. Promising approaches to reducing loneliness and isolafion in later life. 2015.
    1. Horne E, Lancaster GA, Matson R, et al. Pilot trials in physical activity journals: a review of reporting and editorial policy. Pilot and feasibility studies. 2018;4:125.
    1. Chodzko-Zajko Wojtek J., Proctor David N., Fiatarone Singh Maria A., Minson Christopher T., Nigg Claudio R., Salem George J., Skinner James S. Exercise and Physical Activity for Older Adults. Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise. 2009;41(7):1510–1530.
    1. Findlay RA. Interventions to reduce social isolation amongst older people: where is the evidence? Ageing and Society. 2003;23:647–658.
    1. McAuley E, Blissmer B, Katula J, et al Exercise environment, self-efficacy, and affective responses to acute exercise in older adults. Psychology and Health. 2000;15:341-55. doi: .
    1. Lee EC, Whitehead AL, Jacques RM, et al. The statistical interpretation of pilot trials: should significance thresholds be reconsidered? BMC medical research methodology. 2014;14:41.
    1. Walters SJ. Consultants’forum: should post hoc sample size calculations be done? Pharmaceutical Statistics: The Journal of Applied Statistics in the Pharmaceutical Industry. 2009;8:163-169.
    1. Townsend N, Bhatnagar P, Wickramasinghe K, et al. Physical activity statistics 2012. London: British Heart Foundation; 2012.
    1. Mutrie N., Doolin O., Fitzsimons C. F., Grant P. M., Granat M., Grealy M., Macdonald H., MacMillan F., McConnachie A., Rowe D. A., Shaw R., Skelton D. A. Increasing older adults' walking through primary care: results of a pilot randomized controlled trial. Family Practice. 2012;29(6):633–642.
    1. Stewart AL, Mills KM, King AC, et al. CHAMPS physical activity questionnaire for older adults: outcomes for interventions. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2001;33:1126–1141.
    1. Griffin J. The lonely society?: Mental Health Foundation. 2010.
    1. Peplau LA, Miceli M, Morasch B. Loneliness and self-evaluation. Loneliness: a sourcebook of current theory, research and therapy. New York: Wiley-Interscience; 1982. p. 135-151.
    1. Wenger GC, Burholt V. Changes in levels of social isolation and loneliness among older people in a rural area: a Twenty–Year Longitudinal Study. Canadian Journal on Aging/la revue canadienne du vieillissement. 2004;23:115–127.
    1. Furukawa T, Noma H, Caldwell D, et al. Waiting list may be a nocebo condition in psychotherapy trials: a contribution from network meta-analysis. Acta Psychiatrica Scandinavica. 2014;130:181–192.
    1. Gold SM, Enck P, Hasselmann H, et al. Control conditions for randomised trials of behavioural interventions in psychiatry: a decision framework. The lancet Psychiatry. 2017;4:725–732.

Source: PubMed

Patrocinadores e Colaboradores

Condições médicas

Intervenções de drogas

3
Se inscrever