Leading the way together: a cluster randomised controlled trial of the 5R Shared Leadership Program in older adult walking groups

BACKGROUND

With a rapidly ageing society, healthy ageing has become a key challenge. Engagement in physical activity, and particularly walking, is a key strategy that contributes to healthy ageing amongst older adults. The purpose of the present study was to evaluate the efficacy of a group walking program for older adults that incorporates the 5R Shared Leadership Program (5R^S). By implementing a structure of shared leadership and strengthening peer leaders' identity leadership, 5R^S aims to cultivate a shared social identity amongst participants, which has in other contexts been associated with greater performance and well-being.

METHODS

A cluster randomised controlled trial was conducted to test the efficacy of the 5R^S group walking program on group identification, group cohesion, walking activity, and well-being, compared to a regular group walking program for older adults. Nineteen older adult walking groups (i.e., the clusters; N = 503; M_age = 69.23 years, SD = 6.68) all participated in a 12-week structured group walking program. Nine walking groups (n = 304) were randomly assigned to the intervention in which participants received the 5R^S program in addition to regular group walking.

RESULTS

5R^S was successful in strengthening the identity leadership qualities of the appointed peer leaders. Multilevel regressions showed that 5R^S succeeded in increasing group cohesion and walking activity to a greater extent than a regular group walking program, while participants' group identification and well-being increased to a similar extent in both conditions. Furthermore, structural equation modelling revealed that group identification mediated the impact of peer leaders' identity leadership on group cohesion and well-being (but not walking activity).

CONCLUSION

By harnessing the capacity of the group and its peer leaders, the 5R^S program offers a promising intervention to engage older adults in physical activity.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

The study was retrospectively registered as clinical trial on 9 September 2021 ( NCT05038423 ).

Safety and feasibility of an interactive workshop and facilitated outdoor walking group compared to a workshop alone in increasing outdoor walking activity among older adults: a pilot randomized controlled trial

Background

Limited outdoor walking is a marker of frailty and a risk factor for decline in mobility and self-care functioning, social isolation, and reduced health-related quality of life (HRQL). Objectives were to evaluate the safety, feasibility, and preliminary effect of a supervised outdoor walking group and interactive workshop compared to the workshop alone in increasing outdoor walking activity and identify an optimal method for estimating outdoor walking activity among older adults who infrequently walk outdoors.

Methods

A pilot 2-parallel-group randomized controlled trial was conducted. Adults aged ≥ 65 years who reported walking ≤ 20 min/week outdoors were randomized in a 2:1 ratio to receive the GO-OUT program (1-day workshop and 9-week outdoor walking group), or the workshop alone. An external site conducted the randomization after workshop completion. The eight workshop activity stations aimed to build knowledge and skills to safely walk outdoors. The group-based outdoor walking program consisted of repetitive practice of mobility tasks at local parks. The primary outcome of outdoor walking activity used an activity monitor and GPS; secondary outcomes included aerobic, balance, and walking capacity; physical activity; participation; mood; and HRQL. Blinded outcome assessors evaluated participants at 0, 3, and 6 months. Qualitative interviews occurred after 3 months; data were analyzed with qualitative description. Quantitative data were summarized using descriptive statistics.

Results

Forty-eight individuals were screened; 9 were eligible and randomized to the GO-OUT (n = 6) or workshop (n = 3) group. Data from 9 participants were analyzed. Mean age was 77 and 74 years in the GO-OUT and workshop groups, respectively. No falls occurred during the workshop and outdoor walking program. Average attendance of the walking group was 61%. All participants attended the evaluations and workshop. An analysis method combining data from activity monitors and GPS was developed to estimate outdoor walking. Themes from the qualitative analysis included the barriers to outdoor walking, impact of the workshop and GO-OUT walking group, and feasibility and acceptance of the assessment and intervention strategies.

Conclusions

The trial protocol was deemed safe and feasible. Results were used to inform changes to the protocol to conduct a full-scale study.

Trial registration

Clinical Trials.gov: NCT02339467.

Antenatal physical activity: a qualitative study exploring women's experiences and the acceptability of antenatal walking groups

Background

Regular physical activity (PA) can be beneficial to pregnant women, however, many women do not adhere to current PA guidelines during the antenatal period. Patient and public involvement is essential when designing antenatal PA interventions in order to uncover the reasons for non-adherence and non-engagement with the behaviour, as well as determining what type of intervention would be acceptable. The aim of this research was to explore women’s experiences of PA during a recent pregnancy, understand the barriers and determinants of antenatal PA and explore the acceptability of antenatal walking groups for further development.

Methods

Seven focus groups were undertaken with women who had given birth within the past five years. Focus groups were transcribed and analysed using a grounded theory approach. Relevant and related behaviour change techniques (BCTs), which could be applied to future interventions, were identified using the BCT taxonomy.

Results

Women’s opinions and experiences of PA during pregnancy were categorised into biological/physical (including tiredness and morning sickness), psychological (fear of harm to baby and self-confidence) and social/environmental issues (including access to facilities). Although antenatal walking groups did not appear popular, women identified some factors which could encourage attendance (e.g. childcare provision) and some which could discourage attendance (e.g. walking being boring). It was clear that the personality of the walk leader would be extremely important in encouraging women to join a walking group and keep attending. Behaviour change technique categories identified as potential intervention components included social support and comparison of outcomes (e.g. considering pros and cons of behaviour).

Conclusions

Women’s experiences and views provided a range of considerations for future intervention development, including provision of childcare, involvement of a fun and engaging leader and a range of activities rather than just walking. These experiences and views relate closely to the Health Action Process Model which, along with BCTs, could be used to develop future interventions. The findings of this study emphasise the importance of involving the target population in intervention development and present the theoretical foundation for building an antenatal PA intervention to encourage women to be physically active throughout their pregnancies.