Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Due to sudden Corona pandemic related restrictions and an expiration of funding in case of further delay it was decided to prematurely terminate study recruitment and proceed evaluation with a smaller sample size than intended (n=71 instead n=111).
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
| Name | Class |
|---|---|
| Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin | OTHER |
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
In the past years, several studies have demonstrated the potential of task-specific perturbation-based balance training (PBT) for preventing falls at age. However, different paradigms of PBT have been investigated so far, while a comparison of these paradigms is lacking. Therefore, in this study, we plan to compare two promising PBT approaches in terms of feasibility and effects on fall risk-associated motor performance: 1. Training of dynamic stability mechanisms in the presence of perturbations induced by unstable surfaces; 2. Technology-supported training on a perturbation treadmill. In addition, both approaches will be compared with a passive control group. One-hundred and eleven participants aged 65 years or older will be randomly assigned to the three arms of the study. As the primary outcome, we will assess fall risk by use of the Brief-BESTest. Secondary outcomes include balance performance, functional performance, force capacity, and more. We hypothesize that both interventions will lead to a significant reduction of fall risk compared to the control group. Additionally, we will explore whether one of the two PBT paradigms is superior regarding feasibility and effectiveness.
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
| Label | Type | Description | Intervention Names |
|---|---|---|---|
| Instrumented perturbation-based balance training | Experimental |
| |
| Conventional perturbation-based balance training | Experimental |
| |
| Control | No Intervention |
| Name | Type | Description | Arm Group Labels | Other Names |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Training on perturbation treadmill | Other | Perturbations into different directions are induced during static and dynamic tasks on a treadmill. Perturbations include announced and unannounced perturbations. Intensity and number of perturbations increases over the course of the intervention based on judgement of participant. Intervention duration: 6 weeks, 3 sessions a week, each session approx. 30 minutes. |
| Measure | Description | Time Frame |
|---|---|---|
| Balance performance | Brief Balance Evaluation Systems Test (Brief-BESTest) | Change from baseline to post intervention test (an average of 7 weeks) |
| Measure | Description | Time Frame |
|---|---|---|
| Neuromuscular control during perturbations | Muscle synergies derived by non-negative matrix factorization from surface electromyography on 13 leg muscles | Change from baseline to post intervention test (an average of 7 weeks) |
| Reactive balance performance |
Not provided
Inclusion Criteria:
Exclusion Criteria:
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
| Facility | Status | City | State | ZIP | Country | Contacts |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Heidelberg University, Network Aging Research | Heidelberg | 69115 | Germany |
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
| ID | Term |
|---|---|
| D009043 | Motor Activity |
| ID | Term |
|---|---|
| D001519 | Behavior |
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Assessors are blinded during baseline-assessment.
|
| Exercises of dynamic stability under unstable conditions | Other | The mechanisms of dynamic stability recovery are trained under unstable conditions. Different unstable undergrounds are used to stand on, perform lunges or jumps. Additionally, balance is challenged by different restrictions (e.g. decreased base of support, closed eyes) or therapist-applied perturbations. Intervention duration: 6 weeks, 3 sessions a week, each session approx. 45 minutes. |
|
Step, stepping, fall-threshold test on Balance Tutor |
| Change from baseline to post intervention test (an average of 7 weeks) |
| Static balance performance | Center of pressure on force plate | Change from baseline to post intervention test (an average of 7 weeks) |
| Limits of stability | Limits of stability on force plate | Change from baseline to post intervention test (an average of 7 weeks) |
| Spatio-temporal gait parameters | GAITRite System | Change from baseline to post intervention test (an average of 7 weeks) |
| Functional leg strength (a) | 30 s Chair rise test | Change from baseline to post intervention test (an average of 7 weeks) |
| Functional leg strength (b) | Timed Up-and-Go test | Change from baseline to post intervention test (an average of 7 weeks) |
| Force capacity of knee extensors | Isometric force test on force plate | Change from baseline to post intervention test (an average of 7 weeks) |
| Fear of falling | Short Falls Efficacy Scale-International (Short FES-I); range: 7-28 points, high value indicates high fear of falling | Change from baseline to post intervention test (an average of 7 weeks) |
| Feasibility of training paradigms | Acceptance of training questionnaire; range: 1-6 points, high value indicates high acceptance | Post intervention test (on average 7 weeks after baseline) |